Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Land Use Case.517 Park Ave.A070-03
clauson @scaplanning.com, 02:33 PM 6/30/2004, Code Interpretation Request To: clauson @scaplanning.com From: Scott Woodford <scottw @ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Code Interpretation Request Cc: Bcc: Attached: Stan: As far as we in the Com. Dev. Department know, the plat was recorded for 517 Park Circle. You may want to follow -up with the Clerk and Recorder to confirm that. We hand off the plat to our clerks office and they take the steps to record it and I haven't heard that they didn't do that. I discussed your Code Interpretation request with Chris Bendon. Our analysis of the Code does not provide a specific reference to this situation. 26.470.070A2.5. does not apply because it has to do with remodeling of an existing house, not construction of a totally new one. 26.470.070.2 appears to have more to do with multi - family, lodge and hotel units and not single - family or duplex. 26.470.070.B. is specifically titled for single family and duplex and we believe is the pertinent section. Credit is being given for the existing duplex structure damaged by the fire, in that, the fee in lieu would only be calculated on the amount of new structure on the site, therefore, giving, in essence an exemption to the existing duplex. If the applicant were merely rebuilding what they had previously, then I think there'd be more of a case for not requiring the mitigation. This application, however, is a subdivision and PUD, for completely new structures, so I don't think there is the argument that you are reconstructing or rebuilding what was previously there. I didn't get the chance to bring this up at a staff meeting because I've been under deadlines for other projects and will be out the rest of this week. If you would like, I will schedule this for the staff meeting on July 8th for full staff consideration. Please let me know. Thanks, Scott Printed for Scott Woodford <scottw @ci.aspen.co.us> SIAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning • Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 970.925.2323 FAX: 970.920.1628 E -MAIL clauson @scaplanning.com WEB: ww scaplanning.com 23 June 2004 Mr. Scott Woodford Community Development Planner City of Aspen 120 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Request for Interpretation Regarding Affordable Housing Mitigation for Involuntarily Demolished Units Dear Scott: I am writing for a code interpretation relating to the recently approved Wagar - Detweiler lot split. In your staff memo, but not in the final approval ordinance, was a reference to the obligation for the applicants to pay housing mitigation cash -in -lieu fees for the additional square footage of the Wagar and Detweiler/Burek replacement dwellings, over and above the existing square footage of their respective duplex units. Frankly, we did not focus on this issue during the approval process as we were concentrating on the lot size, floor area, and setback issues. We have been asked by Mr. Detweiler to question the requirement for a cash -in -lieu payment for affordable housing. Section 26.470.070 (A) (2) (d) of the City of Aspen Land Use Code provides that reconstruction of demolished units shall be exempt when that reconstruction occurs on the same parcel or a contiguous parcel. Section 26.470.070 (A) (5) provides that expansion of an existing residence is also exempt. Section 26.470.070 (B) provides for replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units. It is this last section that provides for the various types of mitigation: ADU, cash -in -lieu, etc. However, this section has typically been applied when a property owner has voluntarily demolished a unit and rebuilt a new larger one in its place. In the case of the fire - damaged units of Mr. Wagar, and Ms. Burek and Mr. Detweiler, there was no voluntary demolition. We believe that the right to rebuild these destroyed units without mitigation is provided for by the code, as is the right to expand an existing unit without mitigation. Therefore, it would seem that the imposition of a cash -in -lieu exaction on these owners is not supported by the code, since the demolition was not 0 PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS Mr. Scott Woodford, City of Aspen 23 June 2004 Page Two voluntary and the reconstruction is taking place —with minor expansion—on the same parcel or a contiguous parcel. I would appreciate your bringing this question to your next staff meeting for discussion. At this time, we are not filing a formal request for a Planning Director's Interpretation, but would look forward to your examining this question with your colleagues, bearing in mind the expense and hardship that the fire and subsequent reconstruction of their homes has imposed on these owners. Very truly yours, S11-- Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Cc: Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Rich Wagar V11C MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director t. FROM: Scott Woodford, City Planner's RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE, 1ST READING, PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION, ORDINANCE NO. L, SERIES 2004 DATE: March 22, 2004 A view of the existing, fire damaged duplex from Park Circle. The applicants propose to tear down the duplex, subdivide the property into two lots and construct two single - family residences. The driveway shown will be abandoned and moved to the south for access to one home, while the existing access to the north will remain for access to the other. PROJECT: 517 PART{ CIRCLE REQUEST SUMMARY: PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot into two single - family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single - family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than required minimum lot sizes and reduced front and north side setbacks. APPLICANT: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates ZONE DISTRICT: R -15, PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums P &Z ACTION: Approval with conditions on 3/2/04 (7 -0 to approve) STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, RECOMMENDATION: SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTION, WITH CONDITIONS 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE I PROJECT SUMMARY: On April 12, 2003, a fire occurred in the duplex at 517 Park Circle, rendering the structure uninhabitable. Instead of re- building the non - conforming duplex (non- conforming due to its floor area) in its original configuration, which would be allowed by the Land Use Code, the applicants wish to use the two development rights on the property from the duplex and subdivide the property into two lots in order to build two single - family residences. The two lots that the applicant proposes to create are 11,237 square feet and 11,428 square feet, which are smaller than what the existing R -15, PUD zoning on the property requires for minimum lot area per dwelling unit (which is 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit). Single - family residences of 4,098 square feet are proposed to be constructed on each lot. The house sizes were arrived at by using the R -15 zone district external floor area ratios and include mandatory reductions in floor area for steep slopes. The steep slopes are entirely located on proposed Lot 2, however, the applicants have agreed to split the allowed floor area in half. Setting the substandard lot size and shifting a portion of the floor area from one lot to another is achieved through the PUD process. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval to establish reduced front setbacks (from 25' to 10') and north side yard setbacks (from 10' to 5'). Two separate, 12' wide driveways are proposed to access each lot from Park Circle and a 5' wide sidewalk aligned on the back of the curb on Park Circle is also included in the plan. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: The P &Z voted to approve the application on March 2, 2004 by a vote of 7 -0, however, they chose to modify one key condition of approval. Whereas, the applicant proposed a .36 floor area ratio (FAR) for the new single - family structures to be constructed on the new lots and staff recommended a .26, the P &Z voted to approve a .30 FAR. In making their decision, the P &Z indicated that a compromise between the staff and applicant was appropriate, given the sub - standard lot sizes and the desire to allow the applicants a reasonable floor area allowance (see additional discussion later in the report and the attached P &Z minutes for more details on this issue). APPLICABLE LAND USE SECTIONS: In order to accommodate the above development request, the following land use approvals are required: 1) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: In accordance with Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, a PUD Amendment may be utilized to establish alternative dimensional standards. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing PUD in order to allow the proposed lots to be less than the required 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit and to reduce the front and north side yard setback. Final Review Authority: City Council. 2) GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) EXEMPTIONS: Per Section 26.470.070(B) of the Code, a GMQS Exemption may be requested for the 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 construction of a "Detached Single - Family or Duplex Dwelling Unit ". The applicant requests this extension for the construction of two single - family dwelling units after demolition of the existing duplex, which is exempt from GMQS, subject to compliance with certain standards (staff review of those standards follows in the report). Final Review Authority: Community Development Director. 3) SUBDIVISION: Section 26.480 of the Code pertains to Subdivision and subdivision review is required in this instance for the proposed split of the existing duplex lot into two single - family lots. Final Review Authority: City Council. EXISTING CONDITIONS /BACKGROUND INFORMATION: According to City files, the Sunny Park and Sunny Park North Subdivision were annexed into the City in 1966 and zoned later in 1967. Per the City GIS records, the duplex was constructed in 1981. A PUD overlay was established over this property at some point, however, city records do not indicate when this took place or for what reason. The applicants have an easement agreement with Pitkin County, who own the abutting property to the north, to utilize a portion of County property for landscaping and access purposes. At this point, the easement agreement between the applicants and the County will continue with the new subdivision, although the applicant will abandon the driveway access that utilizes County property so the driveway is completely on their property. The duplex is an existing non - conforming structure with respect to allowable floor area. According to the application, the duplex is 5,760 sq. ft. of floor area, whereas the Code allows only 5,380 sq. ft.. As a note, Section 26.312.030 of the Code states that non- conforming structures which are destroyed through "non- purposeful destruction" may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty -four months of the date of demolition. In other words, if the applicants wished to replace the duplex in its existing configuration, the Code would allow them to do so, regardless of its existing non - conforming structure status. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: According to the Code, among the purposes of the PUD is to encourage flexibility and innovation in development in order to meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and achieve a higher quality, more creative design and site planning. To help accomplish these and other goals, the PUD can be used to adjust the dimensional requirements of an underlying zone district. In this case, the applicant is using the PUD to establish site specific dimensional standards for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and the front and the north side yard setbacks. According to Section 26.445.020 of the Land Use Code, a development application for a PUD may be applied for on parcels over 27,000 square feet for the purposes of residential, commercial, tourist, or other development purposes. An application may be 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 applied for on a lot of less than 27,000 square feet, according to the Code, if the Community Development Director determines that the development of the property may have the ability to further the goals of the AACP and that the provisions of the PUD land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. The subject site is only 22,665 square feet. The Director allowed the applicant to proceed with this application despite the smaller site because of the probability that it could further the goals of the AACP. Staff has analyzed how the application furthers these goals below, along with an explanation of the PUD request and staff s position on the issue (also see Exhibit A for Staff Findings related to the PUD Review Standards): MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the R -15 zone district, the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 15,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting PUD approval to create two smaller lots, with one lot being 11,237 sq. ft. and the other 11,428 sq. ft.). STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT): Staff supports the request to establish smaller than minimum lot sizes because allowing the applicant to go from a duplex to two, single - family residences will further the goals of the AACP and be a benefit to the neighboring properties by breaking up the one large mass of the existing duplex into two smaller masses. As the applicant indicates in their support for the amendment, this change will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and will also help open up view corridors from the public street towards the mountains to the south and southwest. The AACP emphasizes the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the natural beauty and environment of the Aspen area. In addition, the proposed smaller lot sizes are not greatly out of compliance with the lot sizes of the surrounding single - family residences (see Exhibit E for this comparison). Staffs support of the smaller lot sizes through the PUD is, however, conditioned upon limiting the amount of floor area for the two proposed single - family dwelling units to the total amount of square footage in the original duplex. According to the application, the floor area for the existing duplex is 5,760 square feet. Staff recommends that the two single family residences split this square footage in a manner chosen by the applicants. Staff proposes that the floor area of the new lots be limited to that of the existing duplex for the following reasons: ■ The limitation would allow the project to better comply with the goals of the AACP. One of those goals, put forth by the applicant, was the enhancement of the neighborhood by splitting up the solid mass of the existing duplex into two, separate masses, thereby improving neighborhood aesthetics and opening up view -planes towards the ski mountain and Shadow Mountain. Staff agrees with this contention, but only if the existing duplex mass were split up between the new homes. If the new homes together are larger than the duplex they replaced (as proposed, the sum of the new single - family residences will be over 2,400 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 square feet more than the existing duplex), then the goal of reducing mass and opening up views has not been achieved. • The floor area tables in each zone district of the Code are weighted towards allowing higher FAR's on smaller lots. So, the applicants proposal to use the R- 15 standards for allowable floor area on the smaller than required lots would result in a higher FAR than could be achieved if the lots actually met the required minimum of 15,000 sq. ft.. For example, on each of the two proposed lots (11,237 and 11,428 sq. ft.), the applicant proposes 4,098 sq. ft. of floor area — arrived at by using the floor area ratios from the R -15 zone district standards - resulting in a .36 FAR. If, however, the lots were to comply with the required minimum lot sizes in the zone district (15,000 sq. ft.), the allowed FAR would be only .30. Per staff's recommendation of limiting the new structures to 2,880 sq. ft., (which equates to half the size of the existing duplex) the resulting FAR would be .25 and .26. At the March 2 "d public hearing, P &Z recommended a .30 FAR (equaling 3,400 sq. ft. of floor area) as a compromise between the applicant's proposal and the staff's recommendation. The chart below further illustrates the different FAR scenarios: Different Lot Size: Allowable Floor Resulting FAR: Scenarios: Area in R -15 Applicants Proposal: 11,237 sq. ft. 11,428 s . ft. 4,098 sq. ft. 4,098 sq. ft. .36 .36 Compliance with R -15 Minimum 15,000 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. .30 Lot Size: Staff 11,237 tsq.ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .26 Recommendation: 11,428 2,880s . fr. .25 P &Z Recommendation: 11,237 sq. ft. 11,428s ft. 3,400 sq. ft. 3,400 sq. ft. .30 • Without the PUD allowing smaller than minimum lot sizes, two single - family structures would not be possible on this parcel. Since staff is recommending that the City relax its standards to allow the two - single family residences (in order to further the goals of the AACP and to provide a community benefit) in place of the duplex (a major benefit to the applicants), staff feels it is appropriate to place reasonable limitations on the size of the new structures to help them better conform to the neighborhood and to preclude a situation where the applicant is further benefiting from the PUD by achieving a higher FAR than would be allowed if the proposed lots complied with the minimum lot size. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: The following table summarizes the setback requirements in the R -15 zone district and the applicant's proposed setbacks for the two new lots: STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS): Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F, the median setback of the surrounding properties, while they vary from 0' up to 54', is 9.9'. In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape, rather than being setback 25'. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the existing house to the south. To offset this request for reduced setbacks off the north property line, the applicants have agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15' versus 10'). 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS): In order to obtain the development rights to build the single - family residences, an exemption to the GMQS is necessary. The following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): DETACHED SINGLE - FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT: According to Section 26.470.070(B), in order to qualify for a single - family exemption, the applicant shall have the following three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single - family dwelling unit being constructed. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 R -15 Requirement: Proposed: Front Yard Setback 25' 10' Rear Yard Setback 10' 10' North Side Yard Setback 10' 5' South Side Yard Setback 10' 15' STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS): Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F, the median setback of the surrounding properties, while they vary from 0' up to 54', is 9.9'. In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape, rather than being setback 25'. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the existing house to the south. To offset this request for reduced setbacks off the north property line, the applicants have agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15' versus 10'). 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS): In order to obtain the development rights to build the single - family residences, an exemption to the GMQS is necessary. The following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): DETACHED SINGLE - FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT: According to Section 26.470.070(B), in order to qualify for a single - family exemption, the applicant shall have the following three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single - family dwelling unit being constructed. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 Per staff s recommendation of limiting the size of the two single - family residences, the above requirement is not applicable. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structures compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. Despite this, the applicant still qualifies for the exemption. If Council approves the applicant's proposal to allow the new single family homes to be larger than the floor area of the existing duplex, then the applicant would pay a fee in lieu for the amount of increase in floor area from the duplex to the new structures. 3. SUBDIVISION: Staff has reviewed all of the subdivision criteria in Exhibit C and have found the request to comply with all of the applicable criteria. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS: The DRC meeting was held on December 17, 2003. The comments from that meeting are attached in Exhibit D. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle, with conditions as put forth in the attached ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. L, Series of 2004, for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle" ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings - Planned Unit Development Standards Exhibit B: Staff Findings - GMQS Exemption Exhibit C: Staff Findings — Subdivision Exhibit D: Referral (DRC) Comments Exhibit E: Lot Size Analysis Exhibit F: Setback Analysis Exhibit G: P &Z Minutes Exhibit H: Application QT yew- �s 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 ORDINANCE N0. 10, (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 517 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH AND SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737 - 074 -01- 016/017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single - family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single - family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen. Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.570 of the Land Use Code, GMQS Exemption approval may be granted by the Community Development Director; however, mm according to Section 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code the applicant has agreed to combine this administrative review with the other land use approvals sought; and, WHEREAS, the PUD Amendment and Subdivision review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to March 2, 2004 where, by a seven to zero (7 -9) vote, recommended City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council reviewed and considered the development proposal at a regular City Council meeting on April 26, 2004 and, by a vote of to (— - J, approved this Ordinance (on Second Reading) for a PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1: The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or both of the proposed single - family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single- family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. -9- e. An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right -of -way, including the landscape berms. f. The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located in the city right -of -way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, of the proposed single - family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 square feet each, which is roughly the result of a floor area ratio of .30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single - family residence on the newly created lots, the applicants shall construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk, in compliance with City of Aspen standards, along Park Circle for the portion of the subject property that fronts Park Circle. Section 2• 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. io- Section 3: 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 22 "d day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this 26`h day of April, 2004. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcestor, City Attorney Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS: PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential'. Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area," which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single - family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single - family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING• DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? J YES The applicant is requesting exemption from the GMQS for construction of two detached single- family dwelling unit. 12- B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) 3 "s 334E Ht II Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Lot 1 ......................... 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2 ......................... 15,000............... 1 1,428 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lot I ......................... 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2 ......................... 15,000............... 11,428 Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 75 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 10 feet Minimum North Side Yard Setback 10 feet 5 feet Minimum South Side Yard Setback 10 feet 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Height 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance b/w Buildings on 10 feet 10 feet the Lot Minimum Percent of Open Space No Requirement No Requirement 4,080 sq. ft., plus 7 sq. ft. /each add'I. 100 sq. ft. in lot area 2,880 square feet per Allowable Floor Area (FAR) up to max. of 4,500 residences sq. ft. (minus slope reduction) Minimum Off Street Parking 2 spaces /unit 2 spaces /unit 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. -13- b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Generally, staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards (specifically with regard to the smaller than minimum lot sizes) are appropriate for the site for the above characteristics and the proposed lot sizes are in general conformance with surrounding properties. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES With the exception of the smaller than minimum lot sizes, the proposal complies with all of the required dimensional standards for the R -15 zone district. With respect to the lot sizes, staff has conditioned the approval to limit the size of the two single - family residences to the total size of the existing duplex. With this limit, staff feels that an appropriate scale, mass, site coverage and open s ace for the neighborhood will result. 3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non - residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The applicant proposes to comply with the parking requirement in the Code for residential uses, which is 2 spaces per unit 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. 14- b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Adequate public facilities are either already in place or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense in order to meet the expected demand. No reductions in density, therefore, are required 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There exists no natural hazards or critical site features as the site has already been developed. No reductions in density, therefore are required. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The applicant does not propose an increase in the amount of allowed density. -15- C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING • DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no existing natural or man -made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING• DOES IT COMPLY? YES In this instance, it is an advantage to the neighborhood and community to have the structures separated to open up vistas and open space which are currently being negatively impacted by the existing duplex 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed lot layout improves the orientation to the public street over the existing situation. The current duplex is not parallel with the street. The new lots will allow the new structures to be parallel with the street, which would comply with the requirement of the Residential Design Standards of having structures properly oriented to the street. With the addition of sidewalks along the front of the lots, the new lots will provide increased visual interest and engagement to 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Both structures will be able to be served by emergency and service vehicles directly from the public street. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES 16- A sidewalk along the Park Circle will be constructed. The individual structures will be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to handicap access. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Each structure constructed on the newly created lots will be required to comply with all Building Departments requirements related to site drainage. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no non - residential uses proposed. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the application, some of the existing vegetation will need to be moved around on the site to accommodate the new configuration and the new sidewalk. There exists no "significant" natural or man -made features requiring preservation. Some landscaping along the edge of the property fronting Park Circle is proposed to help provide some screening and privacy to the structures. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan -17- an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less- intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING• DOES IT COMPLY? YES The application doesn't include any specific building plans for the two proposed single- family residences as they haven't been designed yet. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Standards. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING• DOES IT COMPLY? YES No lighting plan was submitted with this application as the proposed structures have not yet been designed. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure they comply with the lighting ordinance G. Common Park Open Space or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Ira 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant is not proposing any common park open space or recreational area. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING• DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the applicant and the per the review of the Development Review Committee (DRC) adequate utilities and public facilities exist to serve the proposed development. 1. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES Both of the proposed single- family structures will have adequate driveway access off of Park Circle. The City Engineer has requested that the applicant maintain adequate site distance at the point where the driveways to this project intersect with Park Circle, which may include pruning or moving existing landscaping. In addition, sidewalks along the Park Circle in front of the property will be installed by the applicant, thereby improving pedestrian access and safety in an area of the street that is narrow and on a curve. -19- 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES The two access points to the individual lots should not create any traffic congestion due to their low density and to the limited number of trips in and out of the site that are created by the average single - family house. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. $TAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Criteria #3, #4, and #5 are not applicable in this case. Regarding criteria #4, the applicant is proposing to install a sidewalk along Park Circle for the portion that fronts the property. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE No phasing of construction is anticipated at this time. 20- EXHIBIT B STAFF FINDINGS: GMQS EXEMPTION Section 26.470.070 of the Land Use Code applies in this situation, as described below. B. Detached single-family or duplex dwelling unit. The following shall be exempt from the growth management scoring and competition procedures: 1) the construction of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling on a lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section 26.480.020(E), or 2) the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling, or 3) the remodel or expansion of a single - family dwelling into a duplex dwelling. This exemption shall not be applied to any lot for which any other development allotment is currently being sought or is approved. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall be granted only if the following standards are met. 1. Single- family. In order to qualify for a single - family exemption, the applicant shall have three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single - family dwelling unit being constructed. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The portion of the section above related to "the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling ", is applicable in this case and provides the exemption the applicant requests. As the Community Development Department is stipulating that the floor area of the proposed single - family residences to be constructed on the newly created lots be limited to the amount of floor area of the existing duplex, there are no requirements for providing and ADU or paying the fee in lieu in order to qualify for the GMQS Exemption. Per the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net' increase in FAR of the new structure compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. -21- EXHIBIT C STAFF FINDINGS: SUBDIVISION The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential ". Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area, " which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single- family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single - family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. 22- STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES All applicable requirements, including with the zoning requirements of the R -15 zone district are being met with the exception of the minimum lot sizes, which are being established through the PUD process. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Although the site does contain some areas of steep slope, the property has already been developed with the existing duplex without any problems from natural hazards, so staff is confident that the site is suitable for development. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes that the subdivision has been designed to avoid all of the above spatial patterns C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and /or the goals of the community. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. - 23- D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The standards of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, are not applicable because there is no replacement housing involved. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in -lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in -lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Even though a new subdivision is being created, no additional residential units are being created above and beyond what exists on the site now. The purpose of the school land dedication fees is to ensure that the current level of service is maintained as development occurs and school enrollment grows. As there is not net new growth occurring with this proposal staff would interpret the requirement to not be applicable in this instance. 24- EXHIBIT D DRC MINUTES MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: December 17, 2003 Re: 12/17/03 DRC Minutes: 517 Park Circle — PUD Amendment, SubdivisjM GM OS Attendees: Scott Woodford, Case Planner - Community Development Department Nick Adeh, Engineering Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Phil Overeynder, Water Department Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District Brian Flynn, Parks Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Denis Murray, Building Department Janette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Tim Ware, Parking Stan Clauson, representative for applicant At the December 17, 2003 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project: 517 Park Circle — PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS: As proposed, the burnt duplex on Park Circle will be replaced with two single - family residences. The tots are undersized for zone district. DRC COMMENTS Zonin : • 517 Park Circle is located in the R -15 PUD zone district that has the following dimensional requirements: -25- Setbacks: Front Yard - 25 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Rear Yard - 10 feet Height - 25 feet The application packet has several errors as it relates to the dimensional requirements on Attachment B— Dimensional Requirements Form. The height limit for the R -15 zone district is 25 feet, not 28 feet. Furthermore, there are not combined front and rear or side setback requirements for the R -15 zone district. Also, Attachment E contains two proposed building envelopes with no explanation as to which one the applicant is proposing. Finally, the terminology in the application should be "setback" and not "building envelope" as building envelopes are more restrictive and typically not applied to areas in the City except Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the gross lot area is 22,665 square feet. After the exclusion of areas with a slope greater than 20% the lot area is represented to be 19,166. There is no supporting documentation regarding the lot area after slope reduction. Further, the existing allowable and proposed FARs do not take into account slope reduction on the site. Allowable and proposed floor area as well as lot area calculations will be verified when working drawings are submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. Park Fee – The applicant will be required to pay a Park Dedication Impact Fee for any additional bedrooms that are added. Residential Design Standards - Both houses will be required to comply with Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. Lighting Plan - Exterior lighting is required to meet Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code. Per that Section the applicant is required to submit a lighting plan with the PUD review. Staff feels a lighting plan, with cut sheets, can be submitted at the time of building permit submittal. Engineering: Encroachment – An encroachment license is needed for all improvements in the ROW including the berms. Site Distance – The building permit application must demonstrate that the berms do not obstruct the site distance for cars leaving the driveway. Driveway - Per the City code, driveways need to be setback 10 feet from the property line. As shown, the driveway is along the property line. 26- Water Dept: Abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. Parks Dept: As part of the building permit, the Parks Dept needs to review the ROW landscaping and irrigation system. Fire Dept: If the proposed structures have a floor area greater than 5000 sf, sprinkler systems will be needed. Sanitation District: (i) The existing 6" tap can be used to serve both proposed dwellings but a shared service agreement will be needed. (ii) Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase /DRC /517ParkCircle _27_ 4 February 2004 Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback Variance Dear Scott: STAN CiAUSON , EXHIBIT F SETBACK ANALYSIS Planning • Urban ; Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management ' 200 Easy MniN SHEET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TEL HONE: 970.925.2323 FAx: 970.920.1628 E -MAIL: dauson@scaplanning cam WEB :w ..scaplanning.com Attached are copies of a setback analysis we have prepared in support of this variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. As you can see from the analysis, there is little uniformity in the front setbacks. These vary from zero to almost fifty -five feet. However, a good number of these are less than ten feet, and the median setback of the nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10 -foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the front will enhance the public areas and open space of the tennis and club facilities to the rear of the parcel. In the case of Lot 2, the proposed 10 -foot set back allows the siting of the principal mass of the building on the plane of the street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area of the site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site - specific qualities of the proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have.iurtlie�queAioii about -- - -- -�fit s— matter. — Ve truly yours, Stan C son AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl. Cc: Applicants PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS Wagar /Deteweiler PUD Setback) Analysis DACE. sMF£f: ASPEN. COIAN ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. P &Z members present were Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Roger Haneman, John Rowland, and Jasmine Tygre. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:45 pm. Staff present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked for a legal definition of "actual use ". Johnson recalled from the Park Place review the zoning was office and the actual use did not figure into the equation or determination regarding the parking garage. Johnson continued that during the Maroon Creek Club review the issue was that they were nominally lodge rooms but not actually being used as such and that was somehow determined on changing them to multi - family. Johnson wanted an understanding of what "actual use" means or was it nebulous. David Hoefer responded that it wasn't considered nebulous; he suggested discussing it with Joyce and then come back to the commission. MINUTES MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes from January 13, February 3 and 4, 2004; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 6 -0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jack Johnson, John Rowland and Ruth Kruger had conflicts with the Lodge. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/17/04): WAGAR PUD AMENDMENT — 517 Park Circle Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Wagar PUD amendment; public notice was received on February 17th. Scott Woodford stated the application was for a PUD amendment and GMQS Exemption to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots (11,237 and 11,428 square feet) in the R -15 zone district. The PUD was to establish smaller lot sizes and smaller front yard (from 25 to 10 feet) and side yard (from 10 to 5 feet) setbacks, which would be more in compliance with the neighborhood; there was no neighbor to impact. Woodford stated that the new single - family homes be limited to the square footage of the duplex at 5700 square feet split between the 2 single - family homes. The applicant proposed the FAR be allowed for the lot sizes in the zone district (page 5 of the memo a chart showed the comparisons. The applicant proposed one lot at 11,237 square feet with a residence at 4,236 square feet and the other lot at 11,428 square feet with a 4,249 square foot house. The R -15 zone district allowed 15,000 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 square foot lot with a FAR of 4,500 square feet. The staff recommendation was one lot at 11,237 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR and the other at 11,4 =28 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR.) Woodford stated that if P &Z approved the staff recommendation then the applicant would not have to pay an additional fee -in -lieu for any additional amount of square footage. Woodford noted that there was a condition in the resolution addressing this issue. Stan Clauson, planner for applicant, introduced the property owners Deborah Burek and Rich Wagar. Clauson noted that Mr. Wagar had an easement from the county for the parcel of land next door for his driveway. Clauson explained that there was currently no sidewalk and visibility was poor on Park Circle for pedestrians walking on the roadway; as part of this proposal curbs and sidewalks would be installed along Park Circle, which would enhance the pedestrian environment. Clauson said they found nothing in the comp plan that recommended that the floor be less than the floor area allowed in the R -15 zone district; they relied on the chart for a reasonable floor area with a slope analysis reduction calculation. Clauson provided maps, elevations and drawings. Clauson explained the need for the square footage. Rich Wagar supplied 3 letters. Deborah Burek stated that they wanted to enhance the area Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single - family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single - family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks; and, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for the property at 517 Park Circle, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1: The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or both of the proposed single - family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single - family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. OA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 e. An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right -of -way, including the landscape berms. f. The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located in the city right -of -way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, of the proposed single - family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 square feet each, which is roughly the result of a floor area ratio of .30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single - family residence on the newly created lots, the applicants shall construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk, in compliance with City of Aspen standards, along Park Circle for the portion of the subject property that fronts Park Circle. comply 00 , 1' 0 6 tyTm ✓ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/03/04): LODGE AT ASPEN CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for Adjourned 7pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk STAN CLAOSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Re: Request for Lot Split and PUD Review of the Wagar/Detweiler Property, 517 Park Circle Dear Chris and Community Development Staff- On behalf of Rich Wager, along with Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, we are writing to request that the City of Aspen conduct the necessary reviews to provide for a PUD Amendment, Subdivision Exemption, and GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units of the Wagar/Detweiler property located at 517 Park Circle in Aspen. As you may know, the duplex located at the subject property recently was involved in a fire that rendered the structure uninhabitable. The owners of the property wish to rebuild the structure as two individual detached units, which will be a benefit to the owners and the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. This application requests an approval for this " Il redevelopment of the property, pursuant to Section 26.445, Section 26.480, and Section 26.470.070 (A) (2) of the Aspen Land Use Code, as identified in the Pre - application Conference Summary dated 12 June 2003. In this application, we have responded to the criteria in each of those sections. We have also attached information regarding an easement agreement executed between the property owners and Pitkin County, which owns the abutting parcel to the North. Pitkin County has provided the property owners and, specifically Mr. Wagar, with the right to use the County property for landscape and access purposes. Mr. Wagar has asked Pitkin County if they would be willing to sell him the adjacent property that is the subject of the easement agreement. Providing this additional property to the overall parcel might result in a minor amendment to the PUD as proposed. However, since the Detweiler family is in great need of moving forward on a replacement dwelling, both parties have decided to tender this application without the assumption of further availability of the Pitkin County parcel. PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS Planning • Urban Design ' Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE 970.925.2323 17 November 2003 FAx 970.920.1628 E -MAIL: clauson @scaplanning.com WEa'. w .scaplanning.com Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Request for Lot Split and PUD Review of the Wagar/Detweiler Property, 517 Park Circle Dear Chris and Community Development Staff- On behalf of Rich Wager, along with Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, we are writing to request that the City of Aspen conduct the necessary reviews to provide for a PUD Amendment, Subdivision Exemption, and GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units of the Wagar/Detweiler property located at 517 Park Circle in Aspen. As you may know, the duplex located at the subject property recently was involved in a fire that rendered the structure uninhabitable. The owners of the property wish to rebuild the structure as two individual detached units, which will be a benefit to the owners and the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. This application requests an approval for this " Il redevelopment of the property, pursuant to Section 26.445, Section 26.480, and Section 26.470.070 (A) (2) of the Aspen Land Use Code, as identified in the Pre - application Conference Summary dated 12 June 2003. In this application, we have responded to the criteria in each of those sections. We have also attached information regarding an easement agreement executed between the property owners and Pitkin County, which owns the abutting parcel to the North. Pitkin County has provided the property owners and, specifically Mr. Wagar, with the right to use the County property for landscape and access purposes. Mr. Wagar has asked Pitkin County if they would be willing to sell him the adjacent property that is the subject of the easement agreement. Providing this additional property to the overall parcel might result in a minor amendment to the PUD as proposed. However, since the Detweiler family is in great need of moving forward on a replacement dwelling, both parties have decided to tender this application without the assumption of further availability of the Pitkin County parcel. PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner 17 November 2003 Page Two I look forward to an opportunity to present this application in the review process, and remain ready to answer any questions that you or the review boards may have. Very truly yours, r t Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Attachments: 1 A) Application B) Dimensional Requirements Form C) Land Use Code Standards Report I D) Vicinity Map E) Proposed Lot Split Drawing F) Letter of Authorization from Detweiler/Burek G) Letter of Authorization from Wagar H) Preapplication Conference Summary, dated 12 June 2003 J I) Richard Wagar Proof of Ownership J) Burek/Detweiler Proof of Ownership K) Easement Agreement with Pitkin County K) Private Encroachment License with Smuggler Racquet Club �a a.. APPLICATION Wagar/Detweiler PUD 17 November 2003 Applicants: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler, and > Deborah Burek 4 y j Location: 517 Park Circle in Aspen (PID# 2737 - 074 -01 - 016/017) Zone District: R -15 An application for an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision Exemption, and GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units. Represented by: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC 200 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 970- 925 -2323 3 4, APPI.ICArrr: ATTACHMENT A Name: Rich Wagar Dick Delweder and Deborah Nuc k Lpl"afcd cation: 517 Falk Circle, Aspen (indicate street address, lot & block number, 'on where ID # (REQUMED) 2737-07401 -016/017 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Stan Clawson Associates, LLC Address: 200 E. Main Street CO 81611 Phone k 970 925 -2323 Name: Wagar, D"WmBurek Amendment to a PUD, Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devi. ❑ Special Review ® Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development ❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devi. ❑ GMQS Ally ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition ® GMQS Exemption ® Subdivision ❑ Historic ❑ ESA — 8040Greenline,Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ dgeco ver Margin, Hallam Lake BW condomimumi on) Expansion Mountain View Plane ❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Other: ❑ Lot Line Adiusimew ❑ Tataw Amendment w r The existing duplex was deshoyed by a fire and is rendered uninhabitable. The property is part of a previously established PUD for which established standards were adopted PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buiWinps uses, modifications, etc.) The applicant wishes to subdivide the property and reconstruct their homes as detached units. This requires an amendment to the PUD to allow a smaller minimum lot sine within the overlay area. a ' w Have you attached the f ® Pre - Application Conference Summary FEES DnE S 2 fer +� ® Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement + ® Response to Attachment #3, Dim=onW RoWu ments Form ® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Reilumanents- including Written Respouses to Review Standards Attachment B DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Wager. Detweiler PUD Amendment Subdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R_15 Lot Size: 22 665 square feet Lot Area: 19 166 square feet (W ximatel}) for slope reduction (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq/ft): Existing: 0 Proposed. Number of residential units: Existing: 2 Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing: �6 Allowable: Principal bldg. height: Existing: 28 ft Allowable: Access bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: On -Site parking: Existing. 4 Required: % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required: % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required: Front Setback (feet): Existing: 25 Required: Rear Setback: Existing: 5 Required: Combined F/R: Existing: 30 Required: Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required.• Side Setback: Existing. 80 Required: Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required: 0 2 Not determined 5,380 proposed.. 4,236 -Lott duplex 4,249 - Lot 2 28 R Proposed: 28 R 25 ft Proposed: 25 ft 4 Proposed.• Not determned N/A Proposed. • Not dammnned N/A Proposed. • Not deternaned 25 Proposed.• 25 10 Proposed. 10 35 Proposed: 35 10 Proposed. 10 10 Proposed. • 10 20 Proposed-* 20 Existing non - conformities or encroachments: A smal_ portion of the building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches imo adjacent land owned by Pitkin CgmpVi. Variations requested: The a licant r uests a minimum lot size in the PUD of 11,237 s%uare feet. r ATTACHMENT C Introduction On April 12, 2003, a fire erupted in the duplex located at 517 Park Circle that left the structure dilapidated and uninhabitable. Rich Wagar owns and occupied one of the units, and Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek own and occupied the other unit. These two families suddenly found themselves without a place to live. Needless to say, the owners would like to rebuild their homes and continue with their lives a soon as possible. However, rather than replace the previous duplex configuration on the site, the applicants wish to subdivide the property and build two detached single - family residences. The intent is to build architecturally two pleasing structures, which would contribute to their privacy and would enhance the general aesthetics of the neighborhood The fire- damaged duplex was designed as an elongated two -story structure. It blocked viewplanes of Aspen Mountain, Shadow Mountain, and Buttermilk from Park Circle. These views represent amenities that can be considered a community benefit that would be restored with a two -lot configuration, especially considering the location at the base of Smuggler Mountain Road. The proposal would break up the mass and bulk of the duplex structure, and allow for development of two smaller structures that would enhance the visual quality of the Park Circle area for the community at large. Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 1 Land Use Code Standards Report Offered below are responses to relevant standards as identified in the Land Use Code: 1. Responses to Section 26.445 Planned Unit Development 26.445.050 A. General Requirements 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempted from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to: or in combination with, the final PUD development plan review. Response: This proposal supports the reaffirmed goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan in that it will, "Enhance the character and charm of Aspen. " By detaching the two units, the overall aesthetic quality of the property will be improved while exposing valuable viewplanes from Park Circle that are currently blocked The prominent visual barrier posed by the duplex will be eliminated. The proposed PUD amendment will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. It will improve it by enhancing the aesthetic and architectural quality of the neighborhood The applicants wish to reconstruct separate residences that will incorporate defensible space between units to lessen the possibility offire destroying more than one unit (f such an unfortunate circumstance presents itself in the future). The applicants are also requesting GMQS Exemption pursuant to Code Section 26.470.070, which is addressed later in this application. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in the General Provisions, Section 26.445.040 above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 2 development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man -made hazards. C) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Response: The proposed PUD amendment will allow the construction of two single-family units that will be consistent with the character of the surrounding area There are no natural hazards on the site. The applicant intends to utilize a small portion of steep slopes where development will be engineered to assure sound foundation construction The proposed development will create no f a7her noise, tragic transit, or parking generation than did the previous duplex. Pedestrian circulation will be improved through the installation of public infrastructure in the right- of-way fronting the two parcels. There are no identified historical resources on the property . The proposed dimensional standards of the amended PUD are as follows: Minimum lot size (square feet): 11,237 Minimum lot width (feet): 75 Minimum front yard setback (feet): Residential 25, Accessory 30 Minimum side yard setback (feet): 10 Minimum rear yard setback (feet): Residential 10, Accessory 5, Other 20 Minimum height (feet): 25 Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): 10 Percentage of open space required for building site: no requirement External floor area ratio: Same as R -15 zone district Section 26.710.050 Note: The only variation from the R -15 zone district (and the existing PUD overlay) that is requested by the applicants, is a smaller minimum lot size as specified above. The building envelopes created by the standard setbacks are illustrated on the drawing provided as Attachment E. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 3 Response: The scale and massing of the proposed units will comply with the requirements of the underlying R -15 zone district and will compliment the character ofsingle family residences that exist in the area The encroachment of the existing duplex onto the adjacent Pitkin County Property will be eliminated upon reconfiguration of the property. The newly configured lots will result in a small increase in floor area for each of the proposed detached units, which will be comparable to the allowable floor area on surrounding lots of equal size. 3. The appropriate number of off -street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non - residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Response: The new residential units will not require more parking spaces than previously provided. Current residential parking requirements of the land use code will be met on site. 4. The maximum allowable density within the PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Response: The PUD amendment will not create a greater demand on infrastructure and utilities than did the destroyed duplex. Adequate infrastructure currently exists to serve the proposed units. Additional pedestrian infrastructure will be provided along the Park Circle right -of -way fronting the parcels. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exist natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 4 b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area in the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmfiil disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Response: There are no natural site features on the property that would deem the land unsuitable for development. No detriment to drainage, watershed or air quality will result from detaching the two residences. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Response: The applicants are requesting the ability to construct the same number of units that existed within the destroyed duplex. The applicants are willing to deed restrict the subdivided properties to prohibit future development of duplexes on either lot in effort to maintain the current density of the area C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man -made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 5 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Response: The site plan of the proposed detached single-family residences will allow for enhancement of vistas and viewplanes by breaking up the visual barrier that is posed by the existing duplex structure. The residences will be clustered and situated to maximize the lots and eliminate encroachment onto adjacent open space properties. Emergency and service vehicle access will be improved to meet City standards. Pedestrian/ handicapped access will be incorporated as part of the final design. The applicant will submit a drainage plan to the City Engineer for approval prior to building permit submission. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and made -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Response: The existing vegetation on site is strictly ornamental. The applicant is willing to replace the vegetation in equal quantity upon reconfiguration of the lots and the re- location of the detached units. There are no signicantfeatures on the site that require preservation. Some screen planting currently exists on the front public right -of -way. This planting would be relocated to provide space for a sidewalk Wagar, DetweilerBarek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 6 E. Architectural Character It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less - intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Response: As mentioned previously, the applicant intends to design the detached dwelling units to compliment the character of the surrounding area in accordance with City of Aspen Residential Design Standards. The proposed structures will be oriented towards the south to allow for greater solar exposure. It is not anticipated that the removal of snow and ice will require significant maintenance on this property beyond that which was required previously with the duplex. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 7 Response: All lighting will be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards and the applicant will make every effort to assure that lighting will not interfere with adjoining streets or lands. The Applicant has committed to incorporating lighting that that will not divert undue attention to the property. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: I . The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through al legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Response: There is no incorporation of common park open space, or recreation area in the PUD amendment proposal. However, the proposed development will move further away from existing open space, which will preserve the viewplanes associated with that parcel. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following. 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 8 Response: The proposed PUD amendment will have no greater impacts on public utilities and/or facilities than did the duplex structure. Adequate services currently exist in the area. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendation of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Response: The proposed development will continue to provide adequate access from Park Circle, which is a public road within the City of Aspen. No public trails or easements are proposed a part of this application. However, sidewalks will be installed in the Park Circle right -of -way abutting the property . 2. Responses to Section 26.480.050 Subdivision A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 9 b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Request: As mentioned previously, the proposed subdivision will be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive plan by improving the overall aesthetic quality of the area It is not anticipated that this development proposal will affect the future development of the surrounding area in a negative way The subject parcel is the largest lot in the PUD overlay district. The minimum lot size as requested in the PUD amendment will be 11,237 square feet, which will not adversely affect the future development of surrounding lots in the district. 3. Responses to Section 26.470.070 (A)(2) GMOS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units The reconstruction of demolished units shall be exempt. An exemption request that includes a request for an extension of the three year deadline on reconstruction of demolished dwelling, hotel and lodge units shall be accompanied b an improvement survey of the structure. No demolition shall occur until the Community Development Director has verified the accuracy of the improvements survey. The exemption for reconstruction of a demolished unit is available only upon a finding of compliance with the following standards. a. An applicant may propose to demolish and then delay the reconstruction of existing dwelling, hotel or lodge units. b. The applicant shall verify, by letter submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director, the number of existing legal units on the property prior to demolition and shall agree that reconstruction will occur pursuant to terms of this Section. C. Reconstruction shall occur within five (5) years of demolition, unless an extension of this deadline is granted by the City Council for good cause. d. Any building that is demolished shall be limited to reconstruction on the same parcel or on a contiguous parcel owned by the applicant, unless it is determined that reconstruction shall be permitted off -site pursuant to Section 26.520.020 (D). Response: The applicants do not wish to delay the reconstruction of their units. Redevelopment is intended to occur within one year. The applicants will send verification to the Community Development Director that two legal units were built on the property. The applicants do not propose to construct more than two single family residential units. Wagar, Detweiler/Bnrek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 10 ATTACHMENT D Cj e, \ J + QO 0 ° �p O� + + St Zt �a r , , N Wagar, Detwei►er/Burek PUD Vicinity Map (not to scale) ATTACHMENT[ STAN CLAUSON.Ass - oCIATES, - LLC - - - ----- - Land- Mnning - Landscape Anhitecture 200 Ent Main Stmi-Aspen, Co 81611 (970)925-2323 —W 71 1.1' tax: (970)9241628.~.Xaptanning.wm-info@=planning,om IT P1(,F JI-12 01 X— t: ji 15f8,' 85-faplioP- In lope 6,414 87sf BuildMq nv&IOP6 11f (I T- 70' 25' 12' wide Dlive. Re- Locale E,sting Be, EW.6ng vegetation 10' 0 1 fA AE 'r2pll I /I TI- 10 25 5' wide SWenolx iii 1Y 12' Wde Dl;"woy Il '70 i 10. Wogol —Detweiler Property 26 June 2003 Revised— 6 October 200, Option Cl 30' 45, 1 5' Wide sidewlk xY 17[ ATTACHMENT F 12 August 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Stan Clauson Associates 200 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom it may Concern: I give Stan Clauson Associates, ILC and his staff permission to represent us in discussions with the City of Aspen regarding an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for the Reconstruction of Demolished Units. We have retained this firm to assist us in the planning phase of this project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Sincerel i Du Detweiler ATTACHMENT G 12 August 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Stan Clauson Associates 200 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom it may Concern: I give Stan Clauson Associates, LLC and his staff permission to represent us in discussions with the City of Aspen regarding an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for the Reconstruction of Demolished Units. We have retained this firm to assist us in the planning phase of this project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. ° ATTACHMENT H CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: James Lindt, 920.5095 DATE 6/12/03 PROJECT: 517 Park Circle REPRESENTATIVE: Brian McNellis OWNER: Rich Wager TYPE OF APPLICATION: PUD Amendment, Subdivision (Lot Split if review standard "A" is removed as part ofInfill Code Amendments), GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units DESCRIPTION: The applicants would hike to construct two (2) detached single - family residences in place of the duplex that burned down at 517 Park Circle. The applicants may apply for a PUD amendment to establish a minimum lot size on the parcel that it is small enough so that it could be subdivided into two (2) separate lots. Currently, the applicants could not apply for a lot split on the parcel because it has been previously subdivided as is prohibited by Lot Split Review Standard "A". However, the mfi l code amendments that are currently being reviewed by City Council are anticipated to remove Lot Split Review Standard "A ". The applicants may apply for a PUD amendment on the property even though it under 27,000 square feet because it contains a PUD overlay zoning. Applicable Code Sections: 26.445 Planned Unit Development (PUD) 26.480 Subdivision 26.470.070(A)(2) GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units Review by: Staff for complete application, referral agencies for technical considerations, Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation to City Council on PUD Amendment and Subdivision Application, City Council for final review of PUD amendment and Subdivision. Public Hearing: Yes at P & Z, Council 20d Reading of Ordinance Planning Fees: $2520 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $210 per hour) Total Deposit: $2520 To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Signed fee agreement. 4. Pre - application Conference Summary. 5. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. 6. Proof of ownership. 7. Letter of consent from all of the Condo Owners in the building to apply. 8. Proposed site plan that includes a parking plan. 9. Proposed floor plans and elevation drawings that include the proposed dimensional requirements to be established in the PUD. 10. Proposed Subdivision Plat. 11. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 20 Copies of the complete application packet (items 2 -11) 12. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)-preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Process: Apply. Planner checks application for completeness. Application referred to applicable referral agencies. Applicant is given a public hearing date by Staff. Staff writes a memo of recommendation. Planning and Zoning Commission reviews case and makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council makes final determination on land use requests. 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 may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 8. 2003 e 4:24PM- •-- pITKIN COUNTY TITLE»• *349123 09130192 11116 Rea 610,00 RK 69Q VS 3B 8iilvla Davies, P16G5„ enty clone, one 063.20 tv� 0 14ARRAM DEED TWSDia:D.N.6Gk 29th Mar September w 92.b,t,, Ralph Melville and Harlon Halvill-i Orate •a,uety OF Pitkin adsa„of aoiwde.v.••ed Richard H. Nagar +ewe aademwwa 0155 lone Pine, Unfte A -3, Aspen, Colorado 61611 ATTACHMENT I -1-fi q, crib. C q f Pitkin FIVE HUNDRED we AND 1M1 saw wmaPS� TW vwuwBraea ,t)vrw,, ,f aT!- D HOUSAND .---- ------ — - - --- WUAN. t6etem*taN wWAeapeh.HdtGaaayeausrkdded. hwprw. bwWaad, eed W ae.,yed, W byawprew,dkeaawe(,aeryk.adi. o�`a W ntakeo�ewawah :ta::w�ae�andewyrdae:ae aeeawdpwpntraMdM W6Ggronemera .weytek.r.iro,e.,ab.ama. awrOOr Pitkin ad ama efa,4adv detadhNoaeeer. North Condominium Unit, LOT E, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Map thereof filed for recgi�d in Plat Book 12 at Page 50 and according to the Condominium Declarations recorded January 7, 1982, in Book 419 at Page 549 and amended January 15, 1982, in Book 419 at Page 847. Pitkin County, Colorado aeaaunby, aedmeawee 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado 81611 'dOORr�1t wb1 Ore W dgdeW 1W eweimw, W 4P WelRiela:pe. s M egeLt,pppwy�. ed eeto.wdmt M ,wt>ibtw, ,tarkkt W eaeddwe, eau. kwneY peas tbet�5 me dl akera, ty1L 6, Gra eldw NaeawM edlaieaetar of me PW1% ddarkWwaadas 944,M wtaettbm bvjAw wmus. jib de emeeeyadmad al0o^4aaea. TOHAYS ANDTO HOLD tae aiepwa Wake Wpdmaled ODW166.de iee;paweex aft a:ep,aeye. akkdeaWMWW aww,.AW dwoelal, apYwML Wkes, wdlwrentl/ epmewA' c,. muuwgew .NwewVk•aN>6Mrw.xteey.eee, W aebewd areyw. 4Mer/ apneof dwwsaYq, phara7Nlhspetme .kkeeaslwdofAepwidweYweoaw,i,d, hsYee.>uw.Peeba.a ► m6e oedGdaaedlMawed"whwitwas,Glw1G W>; nptr- e: hwdeseddD ,NaPt.wndataaeedwip,Npaot. detglA wn W eettnywwr 'r sorered bto a wwww.ed OR eeasenkte eel der kW Q Maw ead sew m,*L rdJr. adw ow. war. awweweW. .rvweweve.dw „r.aawwuaeR.+mwsum aawi. Those- easements, reservations, restric. tions and other matters more particular!y set forth in the Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof; AND EXCEPT•general real estate taxes for 1982 and subsequent years. which, after adjustment and proration as of the day hereof, Y ur.(.p• Wwdeaae;preehh war pmkn - molt awweeweN=WjW*, d.6, to ane MARIAN MEL11LLE STATE OF COLOnAW Geaob6 Pitkin }w• 1'Ye r,reNW Gwewee eel aei>vl,daw 6erwe n: dda by Ralph Melville and Marian Melville Mymmoulea egka, 2/21/1993 ro is Y • T . •aaoew.e. 29th, • dww. September & 92 'wePNa aq Was. wte elldd wdL ••— 1M)1M4 no.pHCNml-ee. wnawncRSp4:rwweD•Nwa + p ..... wSC.. ,fig e:. ie�r, etkew .nnera_a�,.weole_artwruoo -.ra `1y �� a,0`i�" u a e: e 0 la S u s 90 a A S. 8. 2003 4:25PM' .'PITKIN COUNTY TITLES +' No•7661 rtN J e3491 dpi' 091$0J92 It noc 420.00 BK dA0 pS WP }'•� - Silvia Davie, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc !tii3,20 T EXHIBIT A To MARRANTY DEED 2- Right of the Proprietor of a Vein or Lode to extract and remove his are therefrom, shoeld the same be found to Penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 20, 1949, in Back 174 at Page 171. 3. Restrictions, which do not contain a forfeiture or reverter clause, as contained In instrument recorded March 30, 1964, in Book 206 at Page 301. 4. Those Covenants, conditions,.obligatians, easements and restrictions which are a burden to the Condominium Unit described in Schedus A, and set forth in the Condominium Declaration recorded January Y, 1982, in Book 419 at Page 547. 5. Those covenants, conditions, obligations, easements and restrictions Which are a burden to the Condominium Unit described in Schedule A, and set forth in the Condominium Declaration recorded January 15, 1992, in Book 419 at Page 847. 6. Ten foot utility easement and 30 four building set -back restriction as shown on Nap for Lot 5, sunny Park North (A Condominium) recorded in Plat Book 12 at Page 50. t • d .. r* �;. ?:: __ ., .. ..�� .-. •---•�-�•_•— .,mom._— .._._-° l! [[��. y • *46 `,i Sri ATTACHMENT J WARRANTY DEED THIS DEED, made this January 30, 2001 Between MARTIN J. LICIIHTERMAN and KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN of the County of � L � 9 State of TN, GRANTOR, AND DIRK DETWEILER and DEBORAH J..BUREK, GRANTEE LCS JOrn� whose legal address is: P.O. BOX 812, ASPEN, CO, 81612 of the County of PITKIN. Stale of CO WITNESSETH, That for and in consideration of the sum of ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the grantor has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey and confirm pnto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever, all the real property together with improvements, if any, situate and lying and being in the County of PITKIN, State of COLORADO, described as follows: SOUTH CONDOMINIUM UNIT, LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Map thereof filed for record in Plat Book 12 at Page 50 and according to the Condominium Declarations recorded January 7, 1982 in Book 419 at Page 544 and amended January 15, 1982 in Book 419 at Page 849. _ TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appurtenances th reld belon in or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainders, rents, issues and prdfils thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the grantor either in IaW or equity, of, in and to the above bargained premises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the grantee, his heirs and assigns forever. And the Grantor, for himself, his heirs and assigns, does covenant, grant, bargain, and agree to and with the Grantee, his heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of the presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, has good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, assessments, encumbrances and restrictions of whatever kind or nature soever, except those matters as set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The grantor shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the grantee, his heirs and assigns, against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming the whole or any part thereof. The singular number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of gender shall be applicable to all genders. , 1 TNESS E OF th rantor has executed this deed. \Y/` MARTIN J. LI H E MAN QOOn- KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN STATE OF COUNTY OF U C 1 ss The foregoing instrumen w s acknowledged before me this � (day of by MARTIN J. LICHTER Nand KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN. V20111, WITNESS my hand and official seal MY commission expires: I Notary Pu is IaGLY4111:910M E7ff"t NJCw 110, 2004 BILLOFSALE NOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That MARTIN J. LICHTERMAN and KAY WEEMS ICHTERMAN F the County of State of TN (Seller), for and in consideration of TEN OLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION to him in hand paid, at or efore the ensealing or deliver of these presents by DIRK DETWEILER and DEBORAH J. BUREK of to County of PITKIN, State of CO the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has bargained and Did, and by these presents does grant and convey unto the said Buyer, his personal representatives uccessors and assigns, the following property, goods and chattels, to wit: S SET FORTH ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO )cated at 515 PARK CIRCLE, #S -6, ASPEN, CO 81611 0 HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said Buyer, his personal representatives, successors nd assigns, forever. The said Seller covenants and agrees to and with the Buyer, his personal �presentatives and assigns to WARRANT AND DEFEND the sale of said property, goods and hattels, against all and every person or persons whomever. When used herein, the singular shall wlude the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all e�nn�dders. IN 1(VITpQESS HEREOF, the Seller has executed this BILL OF SALE this 25 day of January, 061)1 —7)'a(I —Pr /l OAJ�TIN J. II90TERMA AA �� .1 QQIMA f.f, CAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN TATE OF I R/VY ovi e.` ss: ,OUNTY OF he foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2001 y MARTIN J. LICHTERMAN, and KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN fitness my hand and official seal. AY Commission expires: w ' 406""MINNA�0.l001 Nota Public I a Recorded the day of _ Reception k Recorder THIS DEED, Had. this day of ,CE Kl ' r 'Cl POO between BUD HICKMAN AND CONNIE HIC o'clock m. By Grantor, for the consideration of '" TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION ' *' in hand paid, hereby sells and quitclaims to DIRK DETNEILER AND DEBORAH J. BUIREK, AS JOINT TENANTS y Grantee, who street address is P'O' BOX 812 City of ASDeD , County'of Pitkin state of COlEmadb 81612 the following SEfi EXHIBIT real property T the County of PITKIN , end state of Colorado, to xit: , ^A^ ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOPI also known as street and number 515 PARK CIRCLE, ASPEN, CO 81611 TOGETHER with all its appurtenances. The singular number shall Include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders.. Signed as of the day and year first above written. v H HICKMAN i CONNIE HICKMAN State of Colorado ) so. County of PITKIN ) The foregoing irmlrLaom'ent was acknowledged before me this day of 12 K V-e r , 3 by BUD HICKMAN ANn r,.m .,.,.e_.. - J Witness my hard and offic(iil se My comnissian expires �// S 19 // j o' Notary sic JANICE L. JOHNSON NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO When recorded return Form No, QC, -(Quit Claim Deed - 2197) 4381101 . 0361102 EXHIBIT A i PARCEL 1: i i A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 6 SUNNY PARK NORTH SUBDIVISION; CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO, WHENCE A N0, 5 RE13AR AND PLASTIC CAP L.S. 15710 AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 BEARS N. 09 DEGREES 27'35" E. A DISTANCE OF 226.95 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 98.27 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 PEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 112 DEGREES 36'37 ", AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING N. 45 DEGREES 14'31" E. A DISTANCE OF 83.20 FEET: THENCE ALONG A LINE 30 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CONSTRUCTED CENTERLINE OF PARK CIRCLE THE FOLLOWING 2 (TWO) COURSES: THENCE 1) S. 34 DEGREES 42'29" W. A DISTANCE OF 7.54 FEET; THENCE 2) S. 36 DEGREES 07'02" W. A DISTANCE OF 75.05 FEET; THENCE N 52 DEGREES 00'00" W. A DISTANCE OF 13.39 FEET TO THE POINT OR BEGINNING. _ PARCEL 4 A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A NO. 5 RE13AR AND PLASTIC CAP L.S. 15710 AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 6 SUNNY PARK NORTH SUBDIVISION, CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; THENCE S 46 DEGREES 16'14 "E. 107.35 FEET; THENCE ALONG A LINE 30 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE'CONSTRUCTED CENTERLINE OF PARK CIRCLE 7.76 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS 247.89 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1 DEGREE 47'37" AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARINGS. 23 DEGREES 32'28" W. A DISTANCE OF 7.76 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAM LOT 6; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE N 42 DEGREES 29'00" W. A DISTANCE OP 110.27 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO. Dirk llQ1 �W I'd x 7i-l- �pLXI co 9 /�o EXHIBIT "A" I. Taxes for the year 2001 not yet due or payable. 2. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United Slates Patent recorded May 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 171. 3. Restrictions, which do not contain a forfeiture or reverter clause, as contained in instrument recorded March 30, 1964 In Book 206 at Page 301. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for Sunny Park North Condominiums recorded January 7, 1982 in Book 419 at Page 549, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. And Amended by Amendment recorded January 15, 1982 in Book 419 at 847. 5. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded in Plat Book 12 at Page 50. 6. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Easement Agreement recorded February 13, 1997 as Reception No. 401780. 7. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 96 -54, Series of 1996 by The Board of County Commissioners recorded March 3, 1997 as Reception No. 402214. 8. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Maintenance, Indemnification, and Hold Harmless recorded August 16, 2000 as Reception No. 446146. I H _ r f i l I 1 j�c�(rarati .T • (� � r� � QUIT -CLAIM DEED i KIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS OF ASPEN LLC, grantors, of County of PITKIN, State of CO, reby QUIT -CLAIM to "RTIN J. LICHTERMAN JR. and KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN, grantees, of TN ose address is: 2944 GAR WAY MEMPHIS TN 38111 the sum of TEN AND NO /gOL�ARS and other good and valuable the following described tract of i in PITKIN County State 'of C tUTH CONDOMINIUM UNIT, L T 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO c MAP THEREOF FILED FOR RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 12 AT PAGE 50 AND ACCORDING TO CONDOMINIUM DECLARATIONS RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1982 IN BOOK 419 AT PAGE 4 AND AMENDED JANUARY 15, 1982 IN BOOK 419 AT PAGE 849. 'NESS, the han o(said grantors, this 25th day of January, A. D., 2001 IN XCHANGE O DINGS OF ASPEN LLC kTE OF COLORADO )ss. UNTY OF PITKIN foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24TH day of JANUARY, 2001, JOY S. HIGENS, PRESIDENT OF PITKIN EXCHANGE, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION NAGER OF PITKIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS OF ASPEN LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED ABILITY COMPANY Priscilla Dawn Probl I Notary Public fly Commission Expires 6125/2003 i 601 E. Hopkins AsDan, CO 81611 commission expires: 11918 00'uedsy supld0H'3 109 C00Z /9219 sejldx3 uolss wwo0 AN olIgnd tieloN 11401 d umed 0111081Jd Return to: KAY AND MARTIN LICHTERMAN 2944 GARDENS WAY MEMPHIS, TN 38111 ---------------------------- ATTACHMNTK 401780 02;13/1997 02:50P PG 1 OF 5 REC DOC SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK 6 RECORDER 0.00 HOT EASEMENT AGREEMENT f THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made this and entered into this 10' Iris- l� -theca F of PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, a body corporate and politic, Grantor, and RICHARD H. WAGAR, an individual whose address is c/o 601 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 104, Aspen, Colorado 81611; BUD HICKMAN and CONNIE HICKMAN, whose.address is 517 Park Circle, South Unit, Aspen, Colorado 81611, Grantees. WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property located in Pitkin County, Colorado as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, Grantees are the owners of certain real property located in Pitkin County, Colorado, which is adjacent to Grantor's real property, and which is more fully described as Lot 6, Sunny Park North Subdivision; and WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed to grant a non- exclusvie easement to Grantees for the purpose of landscaping and maintaining the existing parking improvements located on Grantor's property. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of Easement. a. Grantor hereby grants to Grantees a non- excluse easement for a portion of Parcel #3 as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A", which easement may be utilized for landscaping purposes, including the planting of woody plants, bushes and ground cover, and for maintenance of said landscaping and existing parking area. b. The easement granted herein shall be deemed a permanent easement constituting a benefit to Grantees' real property and shall be deemed to run with the land. 2. Use of Easement. The easement granted herein shall be used soley for the purposes described above and for purposes reasonably necessary and incidental thereto. In the event of any alleged violation of the permitted use of the easement granted herein, Grantor shall provide written notice thereof to Grantees, and Grantees shall correct any such violation within thirty (30) days of such notice. In the event Grantees do not promptly correct such violation, Grantor shalt be entitled to injunctive relief and damages, if any, as well as an award of all costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith. 3. Miscellaneous. a. Any additional improvements to the existing parking area shall be reviewed and approved by the Pitkin County Land Manager prior to commencement. 401780 02/13/1997 02:50P PG 2 OF 5 b. Grantees shall obtain and maintain in effect casualty and liability insurance covering Grantees' use and enjoyment of the easements in amounts reasonably acceptable to Grantor, with Grantees' insurance policy naming Grantor as an additional insured. Grantees shall indeminfy and hold Grantor harmless form any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages and costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, which may be asserted against or incurred by Grantor as a consequence of this grant of easement or Grantees' use and enjoyment of the easement C. This Easement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. This Easement shall be a burden upon Grantor's real property and a benefit to Grantees' real property, constitutes an interest in real property and shall be deemed to run with the land.' This Easement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for any dispute arising hereunder shall be in the District Court of Pitkin County, Colorado. 4. NOTICE: This property is subject to the Partial Consent Decree in the United States District Court, For the District of Colorado, United States of America v. Smuggler- Durant Mining Corn et al, No. 89 C 1802, recorded in Book 777 at Page 910 of the real property records of Pitkin County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Easement agreement is entered into the day and year first above written. GRANTOR Board of CounJY Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado Vif Tui e, Chairman STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF PrrXIN ) On this day of T�,O n&& 1i4 , 1997, before me perso appeared Bill Tuite, known to me to be the persc1h whose name is subscribed toithiw..,,, instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and d .0100 WITNESS my hand and official seal. 4%:"� s Olt, My commission expires:_ g 02/13/1997.02:50P PG 3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF PrlIUN ) OF 5 On this 13t=' day of FPia ; 1997, before me personally appeared Richard H. Wagar, known to me to be a person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. WITNESS my hand and official seal. kr' Notary Public 3 m : pE° °'o-:j My commission expires: S/ �O '•.,• p STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF PnMN ) On this >g day of 1997, before me personally appeared Bud Hiclanan, known to me to be the erson whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. WITNESS my hand and official seal. a'', D. My commission expires: Notary Public Janes S,; Zama 401780 j2/13/1997 02:50P PG 4 OF 5 STATE OF COLORADO ) Ss COUNTY OF PITKIN ) On this l37� day of lel t7c c 1997, before me personally appeared Connie Hickman, known to me to be whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: j \b=\egm t \wggwr Notary Public ,juste, 8, 2voo a : ✓p Ltd 401780 02/13/1997 02:50P PG 5 OF 5 EXHIBIT A Parcel #3 A parcel of land situate in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a No. 5 rebar and plastic cap L.S. 15710 at the North Of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Subdivision Ci of ~r1Y corner thence along a line described m Book 466 a Page 302 of the =Drdsrds of the PPi�tkincounty Clerk and Recorder N.38000100"E. a distance of 40.37 feet; thence departing said lme N.88 ° 37'09 "E. a distance of 71.54 feet; thence along a line 30 feet Westerly of and Parallel with the constructed centerline of Park Circle 11028 feet alotlg the arc of a crave to the r{ght, having a radius 247.89 feet, a central angle of 25 °29118 ", and subtending a chord bearing S.09 0 54'00"W. a distance of 109.37 feet; thence N.46 ° 16'1 4"W a distance of 107.35 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 6439 square feet, more or less. ENCROACHMENT LICENSE ATTACHMENT v THIS AGREEMENT is made this - A� day of October, 2000 and is granted by Smuggler Racquet Club ( "Smuggler ") to the Rich Wagar ( "Wagar "). RECITALS WHEREAS, Wagar desires to obtain from Smuggler a license as delineated in Exhibit A hereto which crosses over and across land owned by Smuggler; and WHEREAS, Smuggler is willing to grant a license to Wagar in accordance with the terms and provisions hereof. WITNESSETH NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of License. Smuggler hereby grants to Wagar for use by Wagar an exclusive landscaping license (the "License") across certain areas of land owned by Smuggler as more fully described in Exhibit A hereto ( "Licensed Area "). 2. Use. Use under the License shall be for landscape features installed by Wagar which encroach onto property owned by Smuggler. Usage of the License shall automatically and immediately cease upon termination of this License in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Wagar agrees to maintain the Licensed Area at his sole cost and expense. No lands of Smuggler may be used to access the Licensed Area and nothing herein shall be construed as a grant, express or implied, over any other lands of Smuggler. 3. Term. The term of this Agreement and the right of Wagar to utilize the Licensed Area shall commence on the date of this Agreement until one year thereafter. 4. Insurance. Wagar shall cause Smuggler to be named as a loss payee beneficiary on his homeowner's liability insurance policy. Provided, however, that the full extent of Smuggler's rights under that policy shall be limited to the extent of any claims against Wagar by reason of Wagar's use of the Licensed Area and shall not extend to any other payment for loss Wagar may incur on his Property. 5.. Notices. Notices and other communications which may be given, or are required to be given hereunder, shall be in writing and shall be deemed given to a party when delivered Personally or when deposited in the United States mail with sufficient postage affixed and addressed to such party at the respective address shown below: Smuggler: Smuggler Racquet Club 1000 Matchless Drive P.O. Box 8788 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Wagar: Rich Wagar Rich Wagar Associates, LLC 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 6. Miscellaneous. A. The failure of Smuggler to insist upon the strict performance of any provisions of this Agreement or to exercise any right or option available to it, or to serve any notice or to institute any action, shall not be a waiver or a relinquishment for the future of any such provision. B. This Agreement may not be amended, nor may any rights hereunder be waived, except by an instrument in writing executed by the parties hereto. 2 J !J C. The interpretation, enforcement or any other matters relative to this Agreement shall be construed and determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. D. All the provisions of this Agreement, including the benefits and burdens created thereby, shall not run with the land and this Agreement may be recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County. E. All provisions of this Agreement inure to the benefit of and are binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives. The Wagar shall not be entitled to assign this License without written consent of Smuggler which may be withheld for any reason whatsoever. F. Wagar shall pay $100.00 for the one year granting of this License. Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as the day and year first above written. Smuggler Racquet C_ flub ACKNOWLEDGMENT ON FOLLOWING PAGE 3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) oecFM 8F2 /� The foregoing Trail Lice a was acknowledged before me this4� day of October, 2000 by / l 6rM,100 -4 a.*7-? S as 2 est0 cti; of Smuggler Racquet Club. STN my ! tcial seal. My: siope5C4: a �e2ells = CJ ,a,`•. O 4 Notary Public .......•N� MyCom Commission Expires STATE OF COORADf�,,,•`) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing Trail License was acknowledged before me this OJ-+day of October, 2000 by Rich Wagar. WITNESS my and official seal. My commission expires: My Commission Expires 10/21/2002 M:\Cfreemn\AVH\Misc \wagar.license.wpd n APPLICATION Wagar /Detweiler PUD 17 November 2003 rev. 11 February 2004 Applicants: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler, and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle in Aspen (PlD# 2737- 074 -01- 016/017) Zone District: R -15 An application for an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision Exemption, and GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units. Represented by: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC 200 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 970 - 925 -2323 17 November 2003 Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning • Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE_ 970.92$ 2323 FAX 970 920.1628 E-MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.com Wee: www.scaplanning.com Re: Request for Lot Split and PUD Review of the Wagar/Detweiler Property, 517 Park Circle Dear Chris and Community Development Staff. On behalf of Rich Wager, along with Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, we are writing to request that the City of Aspen conduct the necessary reviews to provide for a PUD Amendment, Subdivision Exemption, and GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units of the Wagar/Detweiler property located at 517 Park Circle in Aspen. As you may know, the duplex located at the subject property recently was involved in a fire that rendered the structure uninhabitable. The owners of the property wish to rebuild the structure as two individual detached units, which will be a benefit to the owners and the aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. This application requests an approval for this redevelopment of the property, pursuant to Section 26.445, Section 26.480, and Section 26.470.070 (A) (2) of the Aspen Land Use Code, as identified in the Pre - application Conference Summary dated 12 June 2003. In this application, we have responded to the criteria in each of those sections. We have also attached information regarding an easement agreement executed between the property owners and Pitkin County, which owns the abutting parcel to the North. Pitkin County has provided the property owners and, specifically Mr. Wagar, with the right to use the County property for landscape and access purposes. Mr. Wagar has asked Pitkin County if they would be willing to sell him the adjacent property that is the subject of the easement agreement. Providing this additional property to the overall parcel might result in a minor amendment to the PUD as proposed. However, since the Detweiler family is in great need of moving forward on a replacement dwelling, both parties have decided to tender this application without the assumption of further availability of the Pitkin County parcel. PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS Mr. Chris Bendon, Senior Planner 17 November 2003 Page Two I look forward to an opportunity to present this application in the review process, and remain ready to answer any questions that you or the review boards may have. Very truly yours, Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Attachments: A) Application B) Dimensional Requirements Form C) Land Use Code Standards Report D) Vicinity Map E) Proposed Lot Split Drawing F) Letter of Authorization from DetweilerBurek G) Letter of Authorization from Wagar F Preapplication Conference Summary, dated 12 June 2003 I) Richard Wagar Proof of Ownership J) Burek/Detweiler Proof of Ownership K) Easement Agreement with Pitkin County K) Private Encroachment License with Smuggler Racquet Club APPLICATION Wagar/Detweiler PUD 17 November 2003 Applicants: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler, and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle in Aspen (PID# 2737 -074 -01- 016/017) Zone District: R -15 An application for an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision Exemption, and GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units. Represented by: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC 200 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 970 - 925 -2323 A"UCANr, Name. Location: ATTACHMENT A REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Stan Clauson Associates, LLC Address: 200 E. Main Sheet, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970 925 -2323 Name: Wagtr, Detwoler/Btrek Amendment to a PUD, Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units Mr, F IM N/A "IlIn ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devi. ❑ Special Review ® Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final historic Development ❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ NImor Mstcm Devi. ❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ historic Demolition ® GMQS Exemption ® Subdivision ❑ FHstotic Designation ❑ ESA— 8040 GteeahM Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake BW condomfilh ration) Expansion Mountain View Plane ❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use Cl Other. ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ T Amendment EXMM'IG CONMnONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc) The existing duplex was destroyed by a fire and is rendered uninhabitable. The property is part of a previously established PUD for which established standards were adapted PRGPOSAL:_ (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) The applicant wishes to subdivide the property and reconstruct their homes as detached units. This requires an amendment to the PUD to allow a smaller minimum lot size within the overlay area Have you attached the fdbwmg! FEES DUE: S 2,520 ® Pre-Application Conference Summary ® Attachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement ® Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Racpmements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards Attachment B DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: Wapec Detweiler PUD Amendment_ Subdivision and GMQS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R -15 Lot Size: 22 665 square feet Lot Area: 19,166 square feet (approximately) for slope reduction (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq/ft): Existing: 0 Proposed.• Number of residential units: Existing. 2 Proposed.• Number of bedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed.• Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing: 60 Allowable: 4,249 - Lot 2 dup Proposed. Principal bldg. height: Existing: 28 ft Allowable: Access bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable. On -Site parking: Existing: 4 Required. % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required.• % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required- Front Setback (feet): Existing. 25 Required: Rear Setback: Existing. 5 Required: Combined F/R: Existing: 30 Required- Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required: Side Setback: Existing: 80 Required: Combined Sides: Existing. 80 Required.• u 2 Not determined 5,380 Proposed.. 4,236 -Lot 1 duplex 4,249 - Lot 2 28 ft Proposed. 28 ft 25 ft Proposed.• 25 ft 4 Proposed. • Not ddermined N/A Proposed. Not daer,mnea N/A Proposed. • Not determined 25 Proposed. • 25 10 Proposed. • 10 35 Proposed. • 35 10 Proposed. • 10 10 Proposed. • 10 20 Proposed. • 20 Existing non - conformities or encroachments: A small portion of the building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into aceia land owned by Pitkin County Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size in the PUD of 11,237 square feet. Attachment B -1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM — Lot 1 Project: Wager, Detweiler PUD Amendment, Subdivision and GMOS Exem tp ion Applicant: Rich Wagar. Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R -15 Lot Size: 22,665 square feet (fathering parcel) Lot Area: Lot 1 = 11.237 square feet (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq /ft): Existing: 0 Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: 2 Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed.• Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: I 1 Not determined Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing: 5,760 Allowable: Proposed: duplex 4,236 4,098 Principal bldg. height: Existing. 28 a. Allowable: 251 Proposed.• 251L Access bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: 251L Proposed: 25 ft. On -Site parking: Existing: 2 Required: 2 Proposed: Minimum of 2 % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required.• N/A Proposed: N/A % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required: N/A Proposed: N/A Front Setback (feet): Existing: 25 Required: 25 Proposed.• 10 Rear Setback: Existing: 5 Required: 10 Proposed.• 25 Combined F/R: Existing: 30 Required: 35 Proposed: 35 Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required.' 10 Proposed: 15 Side Setback: Existing: 80 Required: 10 Proposed.• 5 Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required: 20 Proposed: 20 Existing non - conformities or encroachments: A small portion of the building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County_ Variations requested: The annlicant reouests a minimum lot size in the PUD of 11,237 square feet, a minimum front setback often (10) feet and a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet on the north side. Attachment B - 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM — Lot 2 Project: Wager, Detweiler PUD Amendment, Subdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R -15 Lot Size: 22,665 square feet (fathering parcel): Lot 2 = 11,428 square feet Lot Area: Lot 2 = 8,571 square feet, with slope reduction at 25% maximum (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq /ft): Existing: 0 Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: 2 Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: z 0 Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing: 5,760 Allowable: Proposed: duplex 3,959 4,098 Principal bldg. height: Existing. 28 fL Allowable: 25 fL Proposed: 25 ft. Access bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: 25 fL Proposed: 25 fL On -Site parking: Existing: 2 Required: 2 Proposed: Minimum of 2 % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required: N/A Proposed: N/A % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required: N/A Proposed: N/A Front Setback (feet): Existing: 25 Required: 25 Proposed: 10 Rear Setback: Existing: 5 Required: 10 Proposed: 25 Combined F/R: Existing: 30 Required: 35 Proposed: 35 Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required. 10 Proposed: 15 Side Setback: Existing: 80 Required: 10 Proposed: 5 Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required: 20 Proposed: 20 Existing non - conformities or encroachments: A small portion of the building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size for the PUD of 11,428 square feet, a minimum front setback often (10) feet, and a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet on the north side. ATTACHMENT C Introduction On April 12, 2003, a fire erupted in the duplex located at 517 Park Circle that left the structure dilapidated and uninhabitable. Rich Wagar owns and occupied one of the units, and Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek own and occupied the other unit. These two families suddenly found themselves without a place to live. Needless to say, the owners would like to rebuild their homes and continue with their lives a soon as possible. However, rather than replace the previous duplex configuration on the site, the applicants wish to subdivide the property and build two detached single - family residences that have floor areas in accordance with the underlying R -15 zone district. The intent is to build two architecturally pleasing structures, which would contribute to their privacy and would enhance the general aesthetics of the neighborhood. The fire- damaged duplex was designed as an elongated two-story structure. It blocked viewplanes of Aspen Mountain, Shadow Mountain, and Buttermilk from Park Circle. These views represent amenities that can be considered a community benefit that would be restored with a two -lot configuration, especially considering the location at the base of Smuggler Mountain Road. The proposal would break up the mass and bulk of the duplex structure, and allow for development of two smaller structures that would enhance the visual quality of the Park Circle area for the community at large. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 1 Land Use Code Standards Report Offered below are responses to relevant standards as identified in the Land Use Code: 1. Responses to Section 26.445 Planned Unit Development 26.445.050 A. General Requirements 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempted from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to: or in combination with, the final PUD development plan review. Response: This proposal supports the reaffirmed goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan in that it will, "Enhance the character and charm of Aspen. " By detaching the two units, the overall aesthetic quality of the property will be improved, while exposing valuable viewplanes from Park Circle that are currently blocked The prominent visual barrier posed by the duplex will be eliminated The proposed PUD amendment will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area It will improve it by enhancing the aesthetic and architectural quality of the neighborhood The applicants wish to reconstruct separate residences that will incorporate defensible space between units to lessen the possibility offire destroying more than one unit (if such an unfortunate circumstance presents itself in the future). The applicants are also requesting GMQS Exemption pursuant to Code Section 26.470.070, which is addressed later in this application. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in the General Provisions, Section 26.445.040 above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 2 development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Response: A. General. The proposed PUD amendment will allow the construction of two single - family units that will be consistent with the character of the surrounding area There are no natural hazards on the site. The applicant intends to utilize a small portion ofsteep slopes where development will be engineered to assure sound foundation construction. The proposed development will create no f rrther noise, traf ic, transit, or parking generation than did the previous duplex. Pedestrian circulation will be improved through the installation of public infrastructure in the right -of -way fronting the two parcels. There are no identified historical resources on the property. B. Dimensional Standards. The proposed dimensional standards of the amended PUD are as follows: Minimum lot size (square feet): 11,237 Minimum lot width (feet): 75 Minimum front yard setback (feet): Residential 10, Accessory 30 Minimum side yard setback (feet): 15 south sideyard, 5 north sideyard Minimum rear yard setback (feet): Residential 25, Accessory 25, Other 25 Minimum height (feet): 25 Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): 10 Percentage of open space required for building site: no requirement External floor area ratio: Same as R -15 zone district Section 26.710.050 C. Variances Requested The following variances are requested as part of the PUD amendment: L A smaller minimum lot size as specified above. 2. The front yard setback is proposed to be reduced from 25 feet to 10 feet We believe that this is consistent with the front setbacks on other adjacent properties and allows for better utilization of the property . 3. Increasing the south sideyard setback to 15' and reducing the north sideyard setback to 5 feet on both lots. This will allow a greater separation between Lot 2 Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 3 and existing residential development, while shifting both houses slightly toward the County easement granted to the property owners on the North. This also allows for better utilization of the property. D. Front yard setback analysis. Attached is a setback analysis we have prepared in support of the front setback variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. The analysis shows that there is little uniformity in the front setbacks along Park Circle. These vary from zero to almost fifty -five feet. However, a good number of these are less than ten feet, and the median setback of the nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this analysis supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10 foot front yard setback Moreover, this closer setback to the front will provide greater separation from the public areas of the tennis and club facilities to the rear of the parcel. In the case of Lot 2, the proposed 10 foot set back allows the siting of the principal mass of the building on the plane of the street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area of the site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site - specific qualities of the proposed PUD. E. Slone Reduction Analysis. The slope reduction analysis shows that areas of steep slopes on the proposed Lot 2 of the subdivision exceed 25% of the existing lot area We have therefore reduced the lot area of Lot 2 by 25% for purposes of calculating allowable floor area. For purposes of clarity, we have revised the dimensional requirements form into two sheets, one for each of the lots to be created. Lot 2 has been reduced by 2,857 s.f to a lot area of 8,571 s-f for purposes of calculating floor area After consulting with Sarah Oates regarding the appropriateness of reassigning floor area within the PUD, we have averaged the allowable floor areas of Lot 1 and Lot 2, so as to obtain an equitable distribution for both property owners. This is reflected in the allowable and proposed floor areas for each lot as shown on the two Dimensional Requirements Form sheets. A slope reduction analysis map is provided following this section F. Curb Cut Changes. An additional change shows the existing driveway at Lot 1 being abandoned Lot 1 will continue to take access through the easement provide by the County to Wagar. Lot 2 shows a new curb cut that is spaced 10 feet within the property line. The building envelopes created by the proposed setbacks are illustrated on the drawing provided as Attachment E. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 4 Response: The scale and massing of the proposed units will comply with the requirements of the underlying R-15 zone district and will compliment the character of single-family residences that exist in the area. The encroachment of the existing duplex onto the adjacent Pitkin County Property will be eliminated upon reconfiguration of the property. The newly configured lots will result in a small increase in floor area for each of the proposed detached units, which will be comparable to the allowable floor area on surrounding lots of equal size. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non - residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Response: The new residential units will not require more parking spaces than previously provided. Current residential parking requirements of the land use code will be met on site. 4. The maximum allowable density within the PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Response: The PUD amendment will not create a greater demand on infrastructure and utilities than did the destroyed duplex. Adequate infrastructure currently exists to serve the proposed units. Additional pedestrian infrastructure will be provided along the Park Circle right -of -way fronting the parcels. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exist natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if- a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 5 b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. C) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area in the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Response: There are no natural site features on the property that would deem the land unsuitable for development. No detriment to drainage, watershed or air quality will result from detaching the two residences. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if- a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. C) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Response: The applicants are requesting the ability to construct the same number of units that existed within the destroyed duplex. The applicants are willing to deed restrict the subdivided properties to prohibit future development of duplexes on either lot in effort to maintain the current density of the area C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: Existing natural or man-made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 6 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Response: The site plan of the proposed detached single-family residences will allow for enhancement of vistas and viewplanes by breaking up the visual barrier that is posed by the existing duplex structure. The residences will be clustered and situated to maximize the lots and eliminate encroachment onto adjacent open space properties. Emergency and service vehicle access will be improved to meet City standards. Pedestrian/ handicapped access will be incorporated as part of the final design. The applicant will submit a drainage plan to the City Engineer for approval prior to building permit submission. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and made -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Response: The existing vegetation on site is strictly ornamental. The applicant is willing to replace the vegetation in equal quantity upon reconfiguration of the lots and the re- location of the detached units. There are no significant features on the site that require preservation. Some screen planting currently exists on the front public right -of -way. This planting would be relocated to provide space for a sidewalk Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 7 E. Architectural Character It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less - intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Response: As mentioned previously, the applicant intends to design the detached dwelling units to compliment the character of the surrounding area in accordance with City of Aspen Residential Design Standards. The proposed structures will be oriented towards the south to allow for greater solar exposure. It is not anticipated that the removal of snow and ice will require significant maintenance on this property beyond that which was required previously with the duplex. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 8 Response: All lighting will be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards and the applicant will make every effort to assure that lighting will not interfere with adjoining streets or lands. The Applicant has committed to incorporating lighting that that will not divert undue attention to the property. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through al legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Response: There is no incorporation of common parr open space, or recreation area in the PUD amendment proposal. However, the proposed development will move further away from existing open space, which will preserve the viewplanes associated with that parcel. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following. 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 9 Response: The proposed PUD amendment will have no greater impacts on public utilities and/or facilities than did the duplex structure. Adequate services currently exist in the area Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements o% or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendation of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Response: The proposed development will continue to provide adequate access from Park Circle, which is a public road within the City of Aspen. No public trails or easements are proposed a part of this application. However, sidewalks will be installed in the Park Circle right -of -way abutting the property. 2. Responses to Section 26.480.050 Subdivision A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 10 b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Request: As mentioned previously, the proposed subdivision will be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive plan by improving the overall aesthetic quality of the area It is not anticipated that this development proposal will affect the future development of the surrounding area in a negative way. The subject parcel is the largest lot in the PUD overlay district. The minimum lot size as requested in the PUD amendment will be 11,237 square feet, which will not adversely affect the future development of surrounding lots in the district The request for floor area allocation in accordance with the R -15 zone district is entirely in accordance with the existing character of the area and the City of Aspen Land Use code. 3. Responses to Section 26.470.070 (A)(2) GMOS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units The reconstruction of demolished units shall be exempt. An exemption request that includes a request for an extension of the three year deadline on reconstruction of demolished dwelling, hotel and lodge units shall be accompanied b an improvement survey of the structure. No demolition shall occur until the Community Development Director has verified the accuracy of the improvements survey. The exemption for reconstruction of a demolished unit is available only upon a finding of compliance with the following standards. a. An applicant may propose to demolish and then delay the reconstruction of existing dwelling, hotel or lodge units. b. The applicant shall verify, by letter submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director, the number of existing legal units on the property prior to demolition and shall agree that reconstruction will occur pursuant to terms of this Section. C. Reconstruction shall occur within five (5) years of demolition, unless an extension of this deadline is granted by the City Council for good cause. d. Any building that is demolished shall be limited to reconstruction on the same parcel or on a contiguous parcel owned by the applicant, unless it is determined that reconstruction shall be permitted off -site pursuant to Section 26.520.020 (D). Response: The applicants do not wish to delay the reconstruction of their units. Redevelopment is intended to occur within one year. The applicants will send verification to the Community Development Director that two legal units were built on the property. The applicants do not propose to construct more than two single-family residential units. Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 11 ATTACHMENT C Introduction On April 12, 2003, a fire erupted in the duplex located at 517 Park Circle that left the structure dilapidated and uninhabitable. Rich Wagar owns and occupied one of the units, and Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek own and occupied the other unit. These two families suddenly found themselves without a place to live. Needless to say, the owners would like to rebuild their homes and continue with their lives a soon as possible. However, rather than replace the previous duplex configuration on the site, the applicants wish to subdivide the property and build two detached single - family residences. The intent is to build architecturally two pleasing structures, which would contribute to their privacy and would enhance the general aesthetics of the neighborhood The fire- damaged duplex was designed as an elongated two-story structure. It blocked viewplanes of Aspen Mountain, Shadow Mountain, and Buttermilk from Park Circle. These views represent amenities that can be considered a community benefit that would be restored with a two-lot configuration, especially considering the location at the base of Smuggler Mountain Road. The proposal would break up the mass and bulk of the duplex structure, and allow for development of two smaller structures that would enhance the visual quality of the Park Circle area for the community at large. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 1 Land Use Code Standards Report Offered below are responses to relevant standards as identified in the Land Use Code: 1. Responses to Section 26.445 Planned Unit Development 26.445.050 A. General Requirements 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempted from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to: or in combination with, the final PUD development plan review. Response: This proposal supports the reaffirmed goal of the Aspen Area Community Plan in that it will, "Enhance the character and charm of Aspen " By detaching the two units, the overall aesthetic quality of the property will be improved while exposing valuable viewplanes from Park Circle that are currently blocked The prominent visual barrier posed by the duplex will be eliminated The proposed PUD amendment will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area It will improve it by enhancing the aesthetic and architectural quality of the neighborhood The applicants wish to reconstruct separate residences that will incorporate defensible space between units to lessen the possibility offire destroying more than one unit (f such an unfortunate circumstance presents itself in the future). The applicants are also requesting GMQS Exemption pursuant to Code Section 26.470.070, which is addressed later in this application B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in the General Provisions, Section 26.445.040 above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 2 development patters shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. Response: The proposed PUD amendment will allow the construction of two single-family units that will be consistent with the character of the surrounding area There are no natural hazards on the site The applicant intends to utilize a small portion of steep slopes where development will be engineered to assure sound foundation construction The proposed development will create no further noise, traffic, transit, or parking generation than did the previous duplex. Pedestrian circulation will be improved through the installation of public infrastructure in the right -of -way fronting the two parcels. There are no identified historical resources on the property. The proposed dimensional standards of the amended PUD are as follows: Minimum lot size (square feet): 11,237 Minimum lot width (feet): 75 Minimum front yard setback (feet): Residential 25, Accessory 30 Minimum side yard setback (feet): 10 Minimum rear yard setback (feet): Residential 10, Accessory 5, Other 20 Minimum height (feet): 25 Minimum distance between detached buildings on the lot (feet): 10 Percentage of open space required for building site: no requirement External floor area ratio: Same as R -15 zone district Section 26.710.050 Note: The only variation from the R -15 zone district (and the existing PUD overlay) that is requested by the applicants, is a smaller minimum lot size as spec fed above. The building envelopes created by the standard setbacks are illustrated on the drawing provided as Attachment E. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area Wagar, DetwederMurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 3 Response: The scale and massing of the proposed units will comply with the requirements of the underlying R-15 zone district and will compliment the character of single family residences that exist in the area The encroachment of the existing duplex onto the adjacent Pitktn County Property will be eliminated upon reconfiguration of the property . The newly configured lots will result in a small increase in f oor area for each of the proposed detached units, which will be comparable to the allowable floor area on surrounding lots of equal size. 3. The appropriate number of off -street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non - residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. Response: The new residential units will not require more parking spaces than previously provided Current residential parking requirements of the land use code will be met on site. 4. The maximum allowable density within the PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if. a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. Response: The PUD amendment will not create a greater demand on infrastructure and utilities than did the destroyed duplex. Adequate infrastructure currently exists to serve the proposed units. Additional pedestrian infrastructure will be provided along the Park Circle right -of -way fronting the parcels. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exist natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 4 b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area in the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. Response: There are no natural site features on the property that would deem the land unsuitable for development. No detriment to drainage, watershed or air quality will result from detaching the two residences. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. Response: The applicants are requesting the ability to construct the same number of units that existed within the destroyed duplex: The applicants are willing to deed restrict the subdivided properties to prohibit future development of duplexes on either lot in effort to maintain the current density of the area C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man -made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. Wagar, DetweilerBarek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 5 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Response: The site plan of the proposed detached single-family residences will allow for enhancement of vistas and viewplanes by breaking up the visual barrier that is posed by the existing duplex structure. The residences will be clustered and situated to maximize the lots and eliminate encroachment onto adjacent open space properties. Emergency and service vehicle access will be improved to meet City standards. Pedestrian/ handicapped access will be incorporated as part of the final design The applicant will submit a drainage plan to the City Engineer for approval prior to building permit submission D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and made -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Response: The existing vegetation on site is strictly ornamental. The applicant is willing to replace the vegetation in equal quantity upon reconfiguration of the lots and the re- location of the detached units There are no significant features on the site that require preservation. Some screen planting currently exists on the front public right -of -way. This planting would be relocated to provide space for a sidevw1k Wagar, DetweilerBnrek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 6 E. Architectural Character It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's . proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less - intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Response: As mentioned previously, the applicant intends to design the detached dwelling units to compliment the character of the surrounding area in accordance with City of Aspen Residential Design Standards. The proposed structures will be oriented towards the south to allow for greater solar exposure. It is not anticipated that the removal of snow and ice will require significant maintenance on this property beyond that which was required previously with the duplex. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Wagar, Detweiler/Burek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 7 Response: All lighting will be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards and the applicant will make every effort to assure that lighting will not interfere with adjoining streets or lands. The Applicant has committed to incorporating lighting that that will not divert undue attention to the property. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through al legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. Response: There is no incorporation of common parr open space, or recreation area in the PUD amendment proposal. However, the proposed development will move further away from existing open space, which will preserve the viewplanes associated with that parcel. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's ftiffastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following. 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Wagar, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 8 Response: The proposed PUD amendment will have no greater impacts on public utilities and/or facilities than did the duplex structure. Adequate services currently exist in the area Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendation of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical Response: The proposed development will continue to provide adequate access from Park Circle, which is a public road within the City ofAspen. No public trails or easements are proposed a part of this application However, sidewalks will be installed in the Park Circle right -of -way abutting the property . 2. Responses to Section 26.480.050 Subdivision A development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Wagar, DetweilerBarek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 9 b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. Request: As mentioned previously, the proposed subdivision will be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive plan by improving the overall aesthetic quality of the area It is not anticipated that this development proposal will affect the four¢ development of the surrounding area in a negative way. The subject parcel is the largest lot in the PUD overlay district. The minimum lot size as requested in the PUD amendment will be 11,237 square feet, which will not adversely affect the future development of surrounding lots in the district. 3. Responses to Section 26.470.070 (A)(2) GMOS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units The reconstruction of demolished units shall be exempt. An exemption request that includes a request for an extension of the three year deadline on reconstruction of demolished dwelling, hotel and lodge units shall be accompanied b an improvement survey of the structure. No demolition shall occur until the Community Development Director has verified the accuracy of the improvements survey. The exemption for reconstruction of a demolished unit is available only upon a finding of compliance with the following standards. a. An applicant may propose to demolish and then delay the reconstruction of existing dwelling, hotel or lodge units. b. The applicant shall verify, by letter submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director, the number of existing legal units on the property prior to demolition and shall agree that reconstruction will occur pursuant to terms of this Section C. Reconstruction shall occur within five (5) years of demolition, unless an extension of this deadline is granted by the City Council for good cause. d. Any building that is demolished shall be limited to reconstruction on the same parcel or on a contiguous parcel owned by the applicant, unless it is determined that reconstruction shall be permitted off -site pursuant to Section 26.520.020 (D). Response: The applicants do not wish to delay the reconstruction of their units. Redevelopment is intended to occur within one year.. The applicants will send verification to the Community Development Director that two legal units were built on the property: The applicants do not propose to construct more than two single-family residential units. Wager, DetweilerBurek PUD Amendment and GMQS Exemption Land Use Code Standards Page 10 J� ( C ATTACHMENT D LLI I� r �- N Wagar, Detwei/erlBurek PUD Vicinity Map (not to scale) W n w z w U H H £OOZ uor £l— Pasuay £OOZ 'noN Ll Xp9dold la�/aM�ap -lo6oM Y /6Mw!/C adu r \ UO,I]O I&A Okll -1%3 PVO uuag sags, 3 . /oao7-aa bugt,3 uopu^py s1 I U/quadr of ,(—Quip sr!ga!+3 wSM ,Lr W. -M5 Mm s v i y sluswaumbay suwoz WO5uwue)daas*qur'Woo 5uiuue)deosmmm'9M-0Z6(026) :xel CeH-3WOM) lIMO9 uadsy.�aaggu)epylse300Z znu.>agq.zq� ar /n.»�prar . Ytquun/rl )-ri's3.ivr)ossd Nos ivID : VLs 'C �C �C CC iC 'NHdSV SNOISIA31d sis�flsu� OMOIOJ (Ifld J9UaAl@ja(j/ .110.wTaA& \ij :193HS wo :31VIC, 'C �C �C CC iC STAN CLAUSON AS Planning- Landscape An 200 Esst Main Sheet- Aspen, Co lax: (970)920.1628 -w -S apla 0 209 -309: 0 309 slopes or greater 2770sf 2770-1= 3219sf 11428.83• .25= 2857.2 3219sf > 2857.2sf, therefore, 259 reduction for floor area applies wcgcr —uvL w-,- • • �r� Y 07 January 2004 Slope Analysis 1 ° =30• ATTACHMENT F 12 August 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Stan Clauson Associates 200 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom it may Concern: I give Stan Clauson Associates, LLC and his staff permission to represent us in discussions with the City of Aspen regarding an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development RUD), Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for the Reconstruction of Demolished Units. We have retained this firm to assist us in the planning phase of this project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Sincerel ID Detweiler ATTACHMENT G 12 August 2003 Mr. Stan Clauson Stan Clauson Associates 200 E. Main St. Aspen, CO 81611 To Whom it may Concern: I give Stan Clauson Associates, I LC and his staff permission to represent us in discussions with the City of Aspen regarding an Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD), Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for the Reconstruction of Demolished Units. We have retained this firm to assist us in the planning phase of this project. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. ATTACHMENT H CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: James Lindt, 920.5095 DATE 6/12/03 PROJECT: 517 Park Circle REPRESENTATIVE: Brian McNellis OWNER Rich Wager TYPE OF APPLICATION: PUD Amendment, Subdivision (Lot Split if review standard "A" is removed as part of infill Code Amendments), GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units DESCRIPTION: The applicants would like to construct two (2) detached single - family residences in place of the duplex that burned down at 517 Park Circle. The applicants may apply for a PUD amendment to establish a minimum lot size on the parcel that it is small enough so that it could be subdivided into two (2) separate lots. Currently, the applicants could not apply for a lot split on the parcel because it has been previously subdivided as is prohibited by Lot Split Review Standard "A ". However, the inflll code amendments that are currently being reviewed by City Council are anticipated to remove Lot Split Review Standard "A". The applicants may apply for a PUD amendment on the property even though it under 27,000 square feet because it contains a PUD overlay zoning. Applicable Code Sections: 26.445 Planned Unit Development (PUD) 26.480 Subdivision 26.470.070(A)(2) GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of Demolished Units Review by: Staff for complete application, referral agencies for technical considerations, Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation to City Council on PUD Amendment and Subdivision Application, City Council for final review of PUD amendment and Subdivision. Public Hearing: Yes at P & Z, Council 2°d Reading of Ordinance Planning Fees: $2520 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $210 per hour) Total Deposit: $2520 To apply, submit the following information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. 3. Signed fee agreement. 4. Pre- application Conference Summary. 5. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City of Aspen. 6. Proof of ownership. 7. Letter of consent from all of the Condo Owners in the building to apply. 8. Proposed site plan that includes a parking plan. 9. Proposed floor plans and elevation drawings that include the proposed dimensional requirements to be established in the PUD. 10. Proposed Subdivision Plat. 11. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 20 Copies of the complete application packet (items 2 -11) 12. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the tact only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD )-preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Process: Apply. Planner checks application for completeness. Application referred to applicable referral agencies. Applicant is given a public hearing date by Staff. Staff writes a memo of recommendation. Planning and Zoning Commission reviews case and makes a recommendation to City Council. City Council makes final determination on land use requests. 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 may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. SUB• S• 20034 4:24PM---- pITKIN COUNTY TITLE —�•��- N( ` ;YY y. M v *149123 09!30192 21{16 Roc •10.00 BK 69Q n 1a Silvia Davin, P16Min Bnty clerk, pee $=.to eea- b RARRAM DEED TB35 DIED, h1 -daa% 29th &,,f September e 98,km,,,a Ralph Melville and Marlon Melville ATTACHMENTI eeae •C„y.of Pitkin cda.d,,pnt,ad Richard H. Hagar 4heaie0&w,,k 0155 Lone Pine, Unite A -3, Aspen, Colorado 81611 ocae cnaya Pitkin rsea. paua ira,a' .ia, ,r FIVE HUNDRED AND lMiRi'(- HOUSANO FORT D mN0%1� -- 532,00.O0�r -- ----- - -. - ---- nouwas. 6�^ a +aTe.n.n,a,r�r+aro,,,y.u.,a�,a, n�o�+. �o�.. wrap ...+aa..■.,a.w:senm,awr...u. �e. dmesm ..we�,u.maeMado.namyua,..rw mmrYewprnyap6rwY6ut� .e�•.e+.iy:gaaadat,a. r°'Ow Pitkin adsae,f[dr.dv daaaedoaawr North condominime Unit. IUT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Map thereof filed for recQrd•in Plat Book 12 at Page 50 and according to the Condominium Declarations recorded January 7, 1982, in Book 419 At Page 549 and amended January 15, 19829 in Book 419 at Page 847. Pitkin County, Colorado weww bye ndnemavw 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado 81511 Adds" win No Maukktodaea. "ed ewedea,asaw■amaaeewae,.uo, knead reae drm{Wdi ee aw.. Wa dd. rd"WM- dwdawera, Daah daaYaw waydei ,4 Y god a d, eax haMtloee daaso. ra ae heMX}mpa ad epwlq,att3, 70 WMA010201a aeompmema "fie mdaaah/:she theedyeer6fim and.■en- kkkdMadad■e i, same ad 6m a dbeaa. r as ae ar w"ad der aea an ame led ON mum wwb^ Beat. New, ogee a nawa s, wmM.ev+ra+edd,aa . w . acee,ew . aa.,ae:„ 1. Those-easements, reservations, restric tiona and other matters more particularly set forth in the Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof; AND EXCEPT•generol real estate taxes for 1992 and cubsequent years which, after adjustment and proration as of the day hereof, .rtweoes,adaaameur.deram + adeame{yaa6w , e,aemtn .-�. alieltNWw®amRdsdnwwaR . edddcaaarodtedn.,c ACPIrMtL J MARIAN MELVILLE STATE OF Ca .Oftop p,,,y,y Pitkin Tie romp," Ihenaaa " m6n.1e4ad WW n: dL by Ralph Melville and Marian Melville My.aaan tpha - 2/21/1993 119 ,r.. r.• T i1 { -YL Ra Damm ban 29th I I • d ,,y September n 92 Q+ywe •goer em,■dd ed. S" no.9eTA. aeaT2L w•vinenaam¢aeese.Ndah + wi .- •�_._ —: � _ —_- -- '- -' sue, e..dbde.ew,e.,.nnw . ea..u,.,,.mena,_aNdr>ssa - -sw �'�l• ���.O�if" a a rc C 0 V u ■ C�p ¢r RAug - 8. 2003 4:25PM' .'pITKIN COUNTY TITIE °' No 766 P. 3 �.... ;i N34912.i' 09/3o/92 11:16 new •10.00 BK &% pO 39 ;;1 0349123 841via Davis, Pltkin Cnty Clerk, Doc 937.20 EXHIBIT A ;N! TO WARRANTY DEED 2. Right of the Proprietor of a Vein or Lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, Should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 20, 1949, in Back 174 at Page 171. 3. Restrictions, which do not contain a forfeiture or reverter clause, as contained in instrument recorded March 30, 1964, in Book 206 at Page 301. 4. Those Covenants, conditions ,,obligation, easemedts and restrictions which are a burden to the condominium Unit described in Schedus A, and set forth in the Condmd4i= Declaration recorded Jouary y, 1982, in Book 419 at Page 547. 5. Those covenants, conditions, obligations, easements and restrictions which are a burden to the Condominium unit described'in Schedule A. and set forth in the Condominium Declaration recorded January 15, 1982, in Book 419 at Page 947. 6. Ten foot utility easement and 30 foor building set -back restriction as shown on Map for Lot 6, Sunny Park North (a condominium) recorded in Plat Book 12 of Page 50. u s ' t n F �,• ea �Sdi�"• � 1T BILLOFSALE KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That MARTIN J. LICHTERMAN and KAY WEEMS _ICHTERMAN if the County of State of TN (Seller), for and in consideration of TEN -)OLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION to him in hand paid, at or efore the ensealing or deliver of these presents by DIRK DETWEILER and DEBORAH J. BUREK of he County of PITKIN, State of CO the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, has bargained and .old, and by these presents does grant and convey unto the said Buyer, his personal representatives uccessors and assigns, the following property, goods and chattels, to wit: ,S SET FORTH ON EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO ocated at 515 PARK CIRCLE, #S -6, ASPEN, CO 81611 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same unto the said Buyer, his personal representatives, successors and assigns, forever. The said Seller covenants and agrees to and with the Buyer, his personal �presentatives and assigns to WARRANT AND DEFEND the sale of said property, goods and chattels, against all and every person or persons whomever. When used herein, the singular shall iclude the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all enders. IN 1 IT QESS H REOF, the Seller has executed this BILL OF SALE this 25 day of January, t 01 MARTIN J. I ERMA n i 9i�1 l Q0 t Mti U'�A, wv wEEMS LICH I LRMAN STATE OF I R/y vc s t ss: 'OUNTY OF.__ �Q�„ t he foregoing insttrrumee tt was acknowledged before me this day of y MARTIN J. LICHTERMAN and KAY WEEMS LICHTERM-d 2001 fitness my hand and official seal. ivly Commission expires: fNota Public THIS DEED, Made this day of Z-Ca K ll q r 3(9 op0c) betwem BUD HICKMAN AND CONNIE HICKMA I I ' I I Grantor, for the oonsldera tl on of "* TEN DOLLARS AND OTHER GOOD AND VgLUgBLE CONSIDERATION! in hand paid, hereby sells and quitclaims to DIRK DETMEILER AND D180RAR J. BUREK, AS JOINT TENANTS i 1 I, I j I Grantee, whpse street address Its _ 0 BOX 812 City of Aspen County of Plt$.11l State of Col OP a 88161 the following i real property in the County of PITKIN SEE EXH1B a n ,and State of Colorado, to wit: , IT A ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOPIi � I I also known as street and number 515 PARK CIRCLE, ASPEN, CO 81611 1 TOGETHER with ell Its appurtenances. The singular nmber shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shell I be applicable to all genders. Signed as of the day and year first above written. i I HICKMAN CONNIE HICKMAN j State of Colorado 1 ss. 1 County of PSTAIN 1 j The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of Q w a¢ r by _BUD HICRMAN AND CONNIE HICKMAN I Witness my hand end officf l' se M mm Y commission aspires Y //S FSJ NICE L. JOHNSON OTARY PUBLIC TE OF COLORADO When recorded return Form No. GCD (Quit Claim Deed 2/97) Q381101 Q381101 EXHIBIT A PARCEL 1: I A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCFIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 6 SUNNY PARK NORTH SUBDIVISION; CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO, WHENCE A NO. 5 REBAR AND' PLASTIC CAP L.S. 15710 AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OP SAID LOT 6 BEARS N. 09 DEGREES 27'35" E. A DISTANCE OF 226.95 PEET; THENCE ALONG THE - EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 98.27 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 112 DEGREES 36'37 ", AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING N. 45 DEGREES 14'31" E. A DISTANCE OF 83.20 FEET; THENCE ALONG A LINE 30 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE CONSTRUCTED CFNTERLINE OF PARK CIRCLE THE FOLLOWING 2 (TWO) COURSES: THENCE 1) S. 34 DEGREES 42'29" W. A DISTANCE OF 7.54 FEET; THENCE 2) S. 36 DEGREES 07-02"W. A DISTANCE OF 75.05 PEET; THENCE N 52 DEGREES Op'OO" W A DISTANCE OF 13.39 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. PARCEL 4 A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATE IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A NO. 5 REBAR AND PLASTIC CAP L.S. 15710 AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 6 SUNNY PARK NORTH SUBDIVISION, CITY OF AS?EN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO; THENCE S 46 DEGREES 16'14 "E. 107.35 FEET; THENCE ALONG A LINE 30 FEET WESTERLY OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE!CONSTRUCTED CENTERLINE OF PARK CIRCLE 7.76 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS 247.89 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF I DEGREE 47'37" AND SUBTENDING A CHORD BEARING S. 23 DEGREES 32'28" W, A DISTANCE OF 7.76 PEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE N 42 DEGREES 29'00" W. A p 110.27 PEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. ISTANCE OF COUNTY OF PITKIN STATE OF COLORADO. r(;�LLrt�/TO Dirk De_ -hu lw I'd x 7/- f 3p.txI Co 9/(, EXHIBIT "A" 1. Taxes for the year 2001 not yet due or payable. 2. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract or remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted as reserved in United States Patent recorded May 20, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 171. 3. Restrictions, which do not contain a forfeiture or reverter clause, as contained in instrument recorded March 30, 1964 In Book 206 at Page 301. 4. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations, easements, restrictions and assessments as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for Sunny Park North Condominiums recorded January 7, 1982 in Book 419 at Page 549, deleting therefrom any restrictions indicating preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin. And Amended by Amendment recorded January 15, 1982 in Book 419 at 847. 5. Easements, rights of way and all matters as disclosed on Plat of subject property recorded in Plat Book 12 at Page 50. 6. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Easement Agreement recorded February 13, 1997 as Reception No. 401780. 7. Terms, conditions, provisions, obligations and all matters as set forth in Ordinance No. 96 -54, Series of 1996 by The Board of County Commissioners recorded March 3, 1997 as Reception No. 402214. 8. Terms, conditions, provisions and obligations as set forth in Maintenance, Indemnification, and Hold Harmless recorded August 16, 2000 as Reception No. 446146. r i r II � �I i I I 1 ie �D 6aX La 5�ti 8 /� /� ��- QUIT-CLAIM DEED KIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS OF ASPEN LLC, grantors, of County of PITKIN, State of CO, reby QUIT -CLAIM to �RTIN J. LICHTERMAN JR. and KAY WEEMS LICHTERMAN, grantees, of , TN ose address is: 2944 GARQENS WAY MEMPHIS TN 38111 the sum of TEN AND NO %ROL�ARS and other good and valuable the following described tract of 1 in PITKIN County State of C )UTH CONDOMINIUM UNIT, LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF FILED F.,OR RECORD IN PLAT BOOK 12 AT PAGE 50 AND ACCORDING TO CONDOMINIUM DECLARATIONS RECORDED JANUARY 7, 1982 IN BOOK 419 AT PAGE 4 AND AMENDED JANUARY 15, 1982 IN BOOK 419 AT PAGE 849. F; i of said CT !TE OF COLORADO ,LINTY OF PITKIN )ss. this 25th day of January, A. D., 2001 LLC i! ,e foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 24TH day of JANUARY, 2001, JOY S. HIGENS, PRESIDENT OF PITKIN EXCHANGE, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION, 14AGER OF PITKIN EXCHANGE HOLDINGS OF ASPEN LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED ABILITY COMPANY Priscilla Dawn Prohl I Notary Public qty Commission Expires 6/2512003 i 601 E. Hopkins Asoen, CO 81611 commission expires: LI9t9 00'uedsv supjdoH *3 W9 E00Z19Z19 sejldx3 uolsslwwo0 AW 0ll4nd tieloN 114ad "I IQ Bllioapd 1 i Return to: KAY AND MARTIN LICHTERMAN 2944 GARDENS WAY MEMPHIS, TN 38111 ILVI0 S 02/13/1997 02 :50P PG 1 OF ILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK & RECORDER EASEMENT AGREEMENT - -- - - - - ATTACHMENT K REC DOC NOT 0.00 THIS EASEMENT AGREEMENT is made this and entered into this I O'�` day `i !`I`ll• -Pecos by and between the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF of PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, a body corporate and politic, Grantor, and RICHARD H. WAGAR, an individual whose address is c/o 601 East Hyman Avenue, Suite 104, Aspen, Colorado 81611; BUD HICKMAN and CONNIE HICKMAN, whose address is 517 Park Circle, South Unit, Aspen, Colorado 81611, Grantees. WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain real property located in Pitkin County, Colorado as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, Grantees are the owners of certain real property located in Pitkin County, Colorado, which is adjacent to Grantor's real property, and which is more fully described as Lot 6, Sunny Park North Subdivision; and WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed to grant a non - exclusvie easement to Grantees for the purpose of landscaping and maintaining the existing parking improvements located on Grantor's property. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: Grant of Easement. a. Grantor hereby grants to Grantees a non- excluse easement for a portion of Parcel #3 as depicted on the attached Exhibit "A ", which easement may be utilized for landscaping purposes, including the planting of woody plants, bushes and ground cover, and for maintenance of said landscaping and existing parking area. b. The easement granted herein shall be deemed a permanent easement constituting a benefit to Grantees' real property and shall be deemed to run with the land. 2. Use of Easement The easement granted herein shall be used coley for the purposes described above and for purposes reasonably necessary and incidental thereto. In the event of any alleged violation of the permitted use of the easement granted herein, Grantor shall provide written notice thereof to Grantees, and Grantees shall correct any such violation within shirty (30) days of such notice. In the event Grantees do not promptly correct such violation, Grantor shall be entitled to injunctive relief and damages, if any, as well as an award of all costs and attorneys' fees incurred in connection therewith. 3. Miscellaneous. a. Any additional improvements to the existing parking area shall be reviewed and approved by the Pitkin County Land Manager prior to commencement F/4 780 02/13/1997 02:50P PG 2 OF 5 f b. Grantees shall obtain and maintain in effect casualty and liability insurance covering Grantees' use and enjoyment of the easements in amounts reasonably acceptable to Grantor, with Grantees' insurance policy naming Grantor as an additional insured. Grantees shall indeminfy and hold Grantor harmless form any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages and costs of defense, including attorneys' fees, which may be asserted against or incurred by Grantor as a consequence of this grant of easement or Grantees' use and enjoyment of the easement. C. This Easement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns. This Easement shall be a burden upon Grantor's real property and a benefit to Grantees' real property, constitutes an interest in real property and shall be deemed to run with the land.' This Easement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Venue for any dispute arising hereunder shall be in the District Court of Pitkin County, Colorado. 4. NOTICE: This property is subject to the Partial Consent Decree in the United States District Court, For the District of Colorado, United States of America v. Smuggler- Durant Mining Corp., et al, No. 89 C 1802, recorded in Book 777 at Page 910 of the real property records of Pitkin County. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Easement Agreement is entered into the day and year first above written. GRANTOR: Board of Co Commissioners of Pitkin County, Colorado i Thi e, Chairman STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF PFFKIN ) On this 0-' '— day of T60 nA&±1_4 , 1997, before me 1 appeared Bill Tuite, known to me to be the persdh whose name is subscribed to instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and de WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: Z Z.& �g e0 02/13/1997.02:50P PG 3 MUM rM SPATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF PMUN ) OF 5 On this fan' day of 1997, before me personally appeared Richard H. Wagar, known to me to be a person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public My commission expires: STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF P1TIdN ) U, n� "B SIC , OP ..• P • ^OILY., On this /3 .y day of �h- 1997, before me personally appeared Bud Hickman, known to me to be the erson whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ...D , Notary Public My commission expires: � •'��B Ll `J . z� is 401780 '2'/13/1997 02:50P PG 4 OF 5 STATE OF COLORADO ) ss COUNTY OF PPTKIN j On this 037 day of :?e-4 1997, before me appeared Connie tfickman, known fo me to be Ete person whose name is subscribed to IY the within instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his free act and deed. WITNESS my hand and official seal. MY commission expires: j \bolt \asMM W I\ WBPr... Notary Public JUK¢_ }3� 2c70p ai Ry`_ S l_l� nu. 401780 02/13/1997 02:50P PG 5 OF 5 EXHIBIT A Parcel #3 A parcel of land situate in Section 7, Township 10 South, Range 84 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian being more particularly described as follows Beginning at a No. 5 rebar and plastic cap LS. 15710 at the Northwesterly corner of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Subdivision, City of Aspen, County of Pitldn, State of Colorado thence along a line described m Book 466 at Page 302 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder N.38 ° 00'00"E. a distance of 40.37 feet; thence departing said line N.88 ° 37'09 "E. a distance of 71.54 feet; thence along a line 30 feet Westerly of and parallel with the constructed centerline of Park Circle 110.28 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius 247.89 feet, a central angle of 25029118" and subtending a chord bearing S.09 0 54'00 "W. a distance of 109.37 feet; thence N.46 ° 16'1 4"W a distance of 107.35 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 6439 square feet, more or less. ENCROACHMENT LICENSE ATTACHMENT L THIS AGREEMENT is made this 4&�7 day of October, 2000 and is granted by Smuggler Racquet Club ( "Smuggler ") to the Rich Wagar ( "Wagar "). RECITALS WHEREAS, Wagar desires to obtain from Smuggler a license as delineated in Exhibit A hereto which crosses over and across land owned by Smuggler; and WHEREAS, Smuggler is willing to grant a license to Wagar in accordance with the terins and provisions hereof. WITNESSETH NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereafter set forth, and for other good and valuable consideration, the parties agree as follows: 1. Grant of License. Smuggler hereby grants to Wagar for use by Wagar an exclusive landscaping license (the "License ") across certain areas of land owned by Smuggler as more fully described in Exhibit A hereto ( "Licensed Area "). 2. Use. Use under the License shall be for landscape features installed by Wagar which encroach onto property owned by Smuggler. Usage of the License shall automatically and immediately cease upon termination of this License in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Wagar agrees to maintain the Licensed Area at his sole cost and expense. No lands of Smuggler may be used to access the Licensed Area and nothing herein shall be construed as a grant, express or implied, over any other lands of Smuggler. 3. Term. The term of this Agreement and the right of Wagar to utilize the Licensed Area shall commence on the date of this Agreement until one year thereafter. 4. Insurance. Wagar shall cause Smuggler to be named as a loss payee beneficiary on his homeowner's liability insurance policy. Provided, however, that the full extent of Smuggler's rights under that policy shall be limited to the extent of any claims against Wagar by reason of Wagar's use of the Licensed Area and shall not extend to any other payment for loss Wagar may incur on his Property. 5.. Notices. Notices and other communications which may be given, or are required to be given hereunder, shall be in writing and shall be deemed given to a party when delivered personally or when deposited in the United States mail with sufficient postage affixed and addressed to such party at the respective address shown below: Smuggler: Smuggler Racquet Club 1000 Matchless Drive P.O. Box 8788 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Wagar: Rich Wagar Rich Wagar Associates, LLC 601 East Hyman Avenue Aspen, Colorado 81611 6. Miscellaneous. A. The failure of Smuggler to insist upon the strict performance of any provisions of this Agreement or to exercise any right or option available to it, or to serve any notice or to institute any action, shall not be a waiver or a relinquishment for the future of any such provision. B. This Agreement may not be amended, nor may any rights hereunder be waived, except by an instrument in writing executed by the parties hereto. 4 C. The interpretation, enforcement or any other matters relative to this Agreement shall be construed and determined in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. D. All the provisions of this Agreement, including the benefits and burdens created thereby, shall not run with the land and this Agreement may be recorded in the real estate records of Pitkin County. E. All provisions of this Agreement inure to the benefit of and are binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives. The Wagar shall not be entitled to assign this License without written consent of Smuggler which may be withheld for any reason whatsoever F. Wagar shall pay $100.00 for the one year granting of this License. Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as the day and year first above written. Smuggler Racquet Club ACKNOWLEDGMENT ON FOLLOWING PAGE 3 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ��CFrn 8�'2 ni The foregoing Trail Licet a was acknowledged before me this( —M day o€f3cta>�r, 2000 by /VWrffx lEC ryargS as 2Rs(0eN; of Smuggler Racquet Club. WITNS my,°ecial seal. My �sioDekp' D CJ tm r cub = ��Dr7XfC_± g'y `•. C a '0 Notary Public " =o�y;•. �,�' MY Commission EXPims STATE OF D6 07101 C. • 4�, COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The foregoing Trail License was acknowledged before me this 24,�day of October, 2000 by Rich Wagar. WITNESS my and official seal. My commission expires: My Commission Expires 10/21/2002 M: \cfreeman\A VH \Misc \wagar. license. wpd El �dl►. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Deevelopment Director FROM: Scott Woodford, City PlanneCO RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE, 2ND READING, PUBLIC HEARING, PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION; ORDINANCE NO. _LQ_, SERIES 2004 DATE: April 19, 2004 A view of the existing, fire damaged duplex from Park Circle. The applicants propose to tear down the duplex, subdivide the property into two lots and construct two single - family residences. The driveway shown will be abandoned and moved to the south for access to one home, while the existing access to the north will remain for access to the other. PROJECT: 517 PARK CIRCLE REQUEST SUMMARY. PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot into two single- family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single - family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than required minimum lot sizes and reduced front and north side setbacks. APPLICANT: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates ZONEDISTRICT: R -15, PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums P &Z ACTION: Approval with conditions on 3/2/04 (7 -0 to approve) STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, RECOMMENDATION: SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTION, WITH CONDITIONS 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE I PROJECT SUMMARY: On April 12, 2003, a fire occurred in the duplex at 517 Park Circle, rendering the structure uninhabitable. Instead of re- building the non - conforming duplex (non- conforming due to its floor area) in its original configuration, which would be allowed by the Land Use Code, the applicants wish to use the two development rights on the property from the duplex and subdivide the property into two lots in order to build two single - family residences. The two lots that the applicant proposes to create are 11,237 square feet and 11,428 square feet, which are smaller than what the existing R -15, PUD zoning on the property requires for minimum lot area per dwelling unit (which is 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit). Single - family residences of 4,098 square feet are proposed to be constructed on each lot. The house sizes were arrived at by using the R -15 zone district external floor area ratios and include mandatory reductions in floor area for steep slopes. The steep slopes are entirely located on proposed Lot 2, however, the applicants have agreed to split the allowed floor area in half. Setting the substandard lot size and shifting a portion of the floor area from one lot to another is achieved through the PUD process. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval to establish reduced front setbacks (from 25' to 10') and north side yard setbacks (from 10' to 5'). Two separate, 12' wide driveways are proposed to access each lot from Park Circle and a 5' wide sidewalk aligned on the back of the curb on Park Circle is also included in the plan. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION: The P &Z voted to approve the application on March 2, 2004 by a vote of 7 -0, however, they chose to modify one key condition of approval. Whereas, the applicant proposed a .36 floor area ratio (FAR) for the new single - family structures to be constructed on the new lots and staff recommended a.26, the P &Z voted to approve a.30 FAR. In making their decision, the P &Z indicated that a compromise between the staff and applicant was appropriate, given the sub - standard lot sizes and the desire to allow the applicants a reasonable floor area allowance (see additional discussion later in the report and the attached P &Z minutes for more details on this issue). APPLICABLE LAND USE SECTIONS: In order to accommodate the above development request, the following land use approvals are required: 1) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: In accordance with Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, a PUD Amendment may be utilized to establish alternative dimensional standards. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing PUD in order to allow the proposed lots to be less than the required 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit and to reduce the front and north side yard setback. Final Review Authority: City Council. 2) GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) EXEMPTIONS: Per Section 26.470.070(B) of the Code, a GMQS Exemption may be requested for the 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 construction of a "Detached Single - Family or Duplex Dwelling Unit ". The applicant requests this extension for the construction of two single - family dwelling units after demolition of the existing duplex, which is exempt from GMQS, subject to compliance with certain standards (staff review of those standards follows in the report). Final Review Authority: Community Development Director. 3) SUBDIVISION: Section 26.480 of the Code pertains to Subdivision and subdivision review is required in this instance for the proposed split of the existing duplex lot into two single - family lots. Final Review Authority: City Council. EXISTING CONDITIONS/BACKGROUND INFORMATION: According to City files, the Sunny Park and Sunny Park North Subdivision were annexed into the City in 1966 and zoned later in 1967. Per the City GIS records, the duplex was constructed in 1981. A PUD overlay was established over this property at some point, however, city records do not indicate when this took place or for what reason. The applicants have an easement agreement with Pitkin County, who own the abutting property to the north, to utilize a portion of County property for landscaping and access purposes. At this point, the easement agreement between the applicants and the County will continue with the new subdivision, although the applicant will abandon the driveway access that utilizes County property so the driveway is completely on their property. The duplex is an existing non - conforming structure with respect to allowable floor area. According to the application, the duplex is 5,760 sq. ft. of floor area, whereas the Code allows only 5,380 sq. ft.. As a note, Section 26.312.030 of the Code states that non- conforming structures which are destroyed through "non - purposeful destruction" may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty -four months of the date of demolition. In other words, if the applicants wished to replace the duplex in its existing configuration, the Code would allow them to do so, regardless of its existing non - conforming structure status. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: According to the Code, among the purposes of the PUD is to encourage flexibility and innovation in development in order to meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and achieve a higher quality, more creative design and site planning. To help accomplish these and other goals, the PUD can be used to adjust the dimensional requirements of an underlying zone district. In this case, the applicant is using the PUD to establish site specific dimensional standards for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and the front and the north side yard setbacks. According to Section 26.445.020 of the Land Use Code, a development application for a PUD may be applied for on parcels over 27,000 square feet for the purposes of residential, commercial, tourist, or other development purposes. An application may be 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 applied for on a lot of less than 27,000 square feet, according to the Code, if the Community Development Director determines that the development of the property may have the ability to further the goals of the AACP and that the provisions of the PUD land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. The subject site is only 22,665 square feet. The Director allowed the applicant to proceed with this application despite the smaller site because of the probability that it could further the goals of the AACP. Staff has analyzed how the application furthers these goals below, along with an explanation of the PUD request and staff s position on the issue (also see Exhibit A for Staff Findings related to the PUD Review Standards): MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the R -15 zone district, the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 15,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting PUD approval to create two smaller lots, with one lot being 11,237 sq. ft. and the other 11,428 sq. ft.). STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT): Staff supports the request to establish smaller than minimum lot sizes because allowing the applicant to go from a duplex to two, single - family residences will further the goals of the AACP and be a benefit to the neighboring properties by breaking up the one large mass of the existing duplex into two smaller masses. As the applicant indicates in their support for the amendment, this change will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and will also help open up view corridors from the public street towards the mountains to the south and southwest. The AACP emphasizes the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the natural beauty and environment of the Aspen area. In addition, the proposed smaller lot sizes are not greatly out of compliance with the lot sizes of the surrounding single - family residences (see Exhibit E for this comparison). Staff s support of the smaller lot sizes through the PUD is, however, conditioned upon limiting the amount of floor area for the two proposed single - family dwelling units to the total amount of square footage in the original duplex. According to the application, the floor area for the existing duplex is 5,760 square feet. Staff recommends that the two single - family residences split this square footage in a manner chosen by the applicants. Staff proposes that the floor area of the new lots be limited to that of the existing duplex for the following reasons: • The limitation would allow the project to better comply with the goals of the AACP. One of those goals, put forth by the applicant, was the enhancement of the neighborhood by splitting up the solid mass of the existing duplex into two, separate masses, thereby improving neighborhood aesthetics and opening up view -planes towards the ski mountain and Shadow Mountain. Staff agrees with this contention, but only if the existing duplex mass were split up between the new homes. If the new homes together are larger than the duplex they replaced (as proposed, the sum of the new single - family residences will be over 2,400 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 square feet more than the existing duplex), then the goal of reducing mass and opening up views has not been achieved. • The floor area tables in each zone district of the Code are weighted towards allowing higher FAR's on smaller lots. So, the applicants proposal to use the R- 15 standards for allowable floor area on the smaller than required lots would result in a higher FAR than could be achieved if the lots actually met the required minimum of 15,000 sq. ft.. For example, on each of the two proposed lots (11,237 and 11,428 sq. ft.), the applicant proposes 4,098 sq. ft. of floor area — arrived at by using the floor area ratios from the R -15 zone district standards - resulting in a.36 FAR. If, however, the lots were to comply with the required minimum lot sizes in the zone district (15,000 sq. ft.), the allowed FAR would be only .30. Per staffs recommendation of limiting the new structures to 2,880 sq. ft., (which equates to half the size of the existing duplex) the resulting FAR would be .25 and .26. At the March 2 °d public hearing, P &Z recommended a .30 FAR (equaling 3,400 sq. ft. of floor area) as a compromise between the applicant's proposal and the staff s recommendation. The chart below further illustrates the different FAR scenarios: Different Lot Size: Allowable Floor Resulting FAR: Scenarios: Area in R -15 Applicants Proposal: Compliance with 11,237 sq. ft. 11,428 sq. ft. 4,098 sq. ft. 4,098 sq. ft. .36 .36 R -15 Minimum 15,000 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. 30 Lot Size: Staff 11,237 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. 26 Recommendation: 11,428 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .25 P &Z Recommendation: 11,237 sq. ft. 11,428 so. ft. 3,400 sq. ft. 3,400 sq ft. 30 • Without the PUD allowing smaller than minimum lot sizes, two single - family structures would not be possible on this parcel. Since staff is recommending that the City relax its standards to allow the two - single family residences (in order to further the goals of the AACP and to provide a community benefit) in place of the duplex (a major benefit to the applicants), staff feels it is appropriate to place reasonable limitations on the size of the new structures to help them better conform to the neighborhood and to preclude a situation where the applicant is further benefiting from the PUD by achieving a higher FAR than would be allowed if the proposed lots complied with the minimum lot size. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: The following table summarizes the setback requirements in the R -15 zone district and the applicant's proposed setbacks for the two new lots: STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS): Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F, the median setback of the surrounding properties, while they vary from 0' up to 54', is 9.9'. In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape, rather than being setback 25'. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the existing house to the south. To offset this request for reduced setbacks off the north property line, the applicants have agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15' versus 10'). 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS): In order to obtain the development rights to build the single - family residences, an exemption to the GMQS is necessary. The following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): DETACHED SINGLE- FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT: According to Section 26.470.070(B), in order to qualify for a single - family exemption, the applicant shall have the following three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single - family dwelling unit being constructed. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 R -15 Requirement: Proposed: Front Yard Setback 25' 10' Rear Yazd Setback 10' 10' North Side Yard Setback 10' 5' South Side Yard Setback 10' 15' STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS): Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F, the median setback of the surrounding properties, while they vary from 0' up to 54', is 9.9'. In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape, rather than being setback 25'. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the existing house to the south. To offset this request for reduced setbacks off the north property line, the applicants have agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15' versus 10'). 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS): In order to obtain the development rights to build the single - family residences, an exemption to the GMQS is necessary. The following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): DETACHED SINGLE- FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT: According to Section 26.470.070(B), in order to qualify for a single - family exemption, the applicant shall have the following three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single - family dwelling unit being constructed. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 Per staff's recommendation of limiting the size of the two single - family residences, the above requirement is not applicable. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structures compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. Despite this, the applicant still qualifies for the exemption. If Council approves the applicant's proposal to allow the new single family homes to be larger than the floor area of the existing duplex, then the applicant would pay a fee in lieu for the amount of increase in floor area from the duplex to the new structures. 3. SUBDIVISION: Staff has reviewed all of the subdivision criteria in Exhibit C and have found the request to comply with all of the applicable criteria. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS: The DRC meeting was held on December 17, 2003. The comments from that meeting are attached in Exhibit D. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle, with conditions as put forth in the attached ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. /c) , Series of 2004, for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle" ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings - Planned Unit Development Standards Exhibit B: Staff Findings - GMQS Exemption Exhibit C: Staff Findings — Subdivision Exhibit D: Referral (DRC) Comments Exhibit E: Lot Size Analysis Exhibit F: Setback Analysis Exhibit G: P &Z Minutes Exhibit H: Letters from Neighbors (Please bring Application from 1st Reading — If you need an extra copy, please contact me) afir, ce 1L/ : `3 o{7/@I —u�T, p � �J-, >Y yY� JR mil -�2�p 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS: PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING• DOES IT COMPLY? YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential ". Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area," which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single - family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single- family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING• DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING' I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The applicant is requesting exemption from the GMQS for construction of two detached single - family dwelling unit iz- B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) ggpl ie r-MQ Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Lot 1 ......................... 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2 ......................... 15,000............... 11,428 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lot 1 ......................... 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2 ......................... 15,000............... 11,428 Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 75 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 10 feet Minimum North Side Yard Setback 10 feet 5 feet Minimum South Side Yard Setback 10 feet 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Height 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance b/w Buildings on 10 feet 10 feet the Lot Minimum Percent of Open Space No Requirement No Requirement 4,080 sq. ft., plus 7 sq. ft. /each add'I. 100 sq. ft. in lot area 2,880 square feet per Allowable Floor Area (FAR) up to max. of 4,500 residences sq. ft. (minus slope reduction) Minimum Off Street Parking 2 spaces /unit 2 spaces /unit 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. 13- b) Natural or man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING• DOES IT COMPLY? YES Generally, staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards (specifically with regard to the smaller than minimum lot sizes) are appropriate for the site for the above characteristics and the proposed lot sizes are in general conformance with surrounding properties. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES With the exception of the smaller than minimum lot sizes, the proposal complies with all of the required dimensional standards for the R -15 zone district. With respect to the lot sizes, staff has conditioned the approval to limit the size of the two single - family residences to the total size of the existing duplex. With this limit, staff feels that an appropriate scale, mass, site coverage and open s ace for the neighborhood will result. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non - residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY N/A The applicant proposes to comply with the parking requirement in the Code for residential uses, which is 2 spaces per unit 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. 14- b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A Adequate public facilities are either already in place or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense in order to meet the expected demand. No reductions in density, therefore, are required 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A There exists no natural hazards or critical site features as the site has already been developed. No reductions in density, therefore are required. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant does not propose an increase in the amount of allowed density. 15- C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no existing natural or man -made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES In this instance, it is an advantage to the neighborhood and community to have the structures separated to open up vistas and open space which are currently being negatively impacted by the existing duplex 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING• DOES IT COMPLY? YES The proposed lot layout improves the orientation to the public street over the existing situation. The current duplex is not parallel with the street. The new lots will allow the new structures to be parallel with the street, which would comply with the requirement of the Residential Design Standards of having structures properly oriented to the street. With the addition of sidewalks along the front of the lots, the new lots will provide increased visual interest and engagement to pedestrian and motorists. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES Both structures will be able to be served by emergency and service vehicles directly from the public street. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. to - STAFF FINDING' I DOES IT COMPLY? YES A sidewalk along the Park Circle will be constructed. The individual structures will be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to handicap access. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING' I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Each structure constructed on the newly created lots will be required to comply with all Building Departments requirements related to site drainage. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no non - residential uses proposed D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the application, some of the existing vegetation will need to be moved around on the site to accommodate the new configuration and the new sidewalk. There exists no "significant" natural or man -made features requiring preservation. Some landscaping along the edge of the property fronting Park Circle is proposed to help provide some screening and privacy to the structures. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan 17 - an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less - intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The application doesn't include any specific building plans for the two proposed single- family residences as they haven't been designed yet. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Standards. F. Li htin . The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES No lighting plan was submitted with this application as the proposed structures have not yet been designed. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure they comply with the lighting ordinance G. Common Park Open Space or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. Is- 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY N/A The applicant is not proposing any common park open space or recreational area. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING' I DOES IT COMPLY YES According to the applicant and the per the review of the Development Review Committee (DRC) adequate utilities and public facilities exist to serve the proposed development. L Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Both of the proposed single - family structures will have adequate driveway access off of Park Circle. The City Engineer has requested that the applicant maintain adequate site distance at the point where the driveways to this project intersect with Park Circle, which may include pruning or moving existing landscaping. In addition, sidewalks along the Park Circle in front of the property will be installed by the applicant, thereby improving pedestrian access and safety in an area of the street that is narrow and on a curve. MM 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The two access points to the individual lots should not create any traffic congestion due to their low density and to the limited number of trips in and out of the site that are created by the -average single-family house. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES Criteria 43, 94, and 45 are not applicable in this case. Regarding criteria 44, the applicant is proposing to install a sidewalk along Park Circle for the portion that fronts the property. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases_ 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING • I DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE No phasing of construction is anticipated at this time. -20- EXHIBIT B STAFF FINDINGS: GMQS EXEMPTION Section 26.470.070 of the Land Use Code applies in this situation, as described below. B. Detached single-family or duplex dwelling unit. The following shall be exempt from the growth management scoring and competition procedures: 1) the construction of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling on a lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section 26.480.020(E), or 2) the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling, or 3) the remodel or expansion of a single - family dwelling into a duplex dwelling. This exemption shall not be applied to any lot for which any other development allotment is currently being sought or is approved. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall be granted only if the following standards are met. Single - family. In order to qualify for a single - family exemption, the applicant shall have three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single - family dwelling unit being constructed. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The portion of the section above related to "the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling ", is applicable in this case and provides the exemption the applicant requests. As the Community Development Department is stipulating that the floor area of the proposed single - family residences to be constructed on the newly created lots be limited to the amount of floor area of the existing duplex, there are no requirements for providing and ADU or paying the fee in lieu in order to qualify for the GMQS Exemption. Per the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net' increase in FAR of the new structure compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no miti ation is required in this case. - 21- EXHIBIT C STAFF FINDINGS: SUBDIVISION The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential ". Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area, " which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING' I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single - family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single- family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. 22- STAFF FINDING' I DOES COMPLY? YES All applicable requirements, including with the zoning requirements of the R -15 zone district are being met with the exception of the minimum lot sizes, which are being established through the PUD process B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES Although the site does contain some areas of steep slope, the property has already been developed with the existing duplex without any problems from natural hazards, so staff is confident that the site is suitable for development. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY YES Staff believes that the subdivision has been designed to avoid all of the above spatial patterns. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and /or the goals of the community. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. -23- D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The standards of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, are not applicable because there is no replacement housing involved. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in -lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in -lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY N/A Even though a new subdivision is being created, no additional residential units are being created above and beyond what exists on the site now. The purpose of the school land dedication fees is to ensure that the current level of service is maintained as development occurs and school enrollment grows. As there is not net new growth occurring with this proposal staff would interpret the requirement to not be applicable in this instance. 24- EXHIBIT D DRC MINUTES MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: December 17, 2003 Re: 12/17/03 DRC Minutes: 517 Park Circle — PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GM OS Attendees: Scott Woodford, Case Planner - Community Development Department Nick Adeh, Engineering Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Phil Overeynder, Water Department Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District Brian Flynn, Parks Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Denis Murray, Building Department Janette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Tim Ware, Parking Stan Clauson, representative for applicant At the December 17, 2003 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project: 517 Park Circle — PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS: As proposed, the burnt duplex on Park Circle will be replaced with two single - family residences. The lots are undersized for zone district. DRC COMMENTS Zonin : • 517 Park Circle is located in the R -15 PUD zone district that has the following dimensional requirements: 25- Setbacks: Front Yard - 25 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Rear Yard - 10 feet Height - 25 feet The application packet has several errors as it relates to the dimensional requirements on Attachment B— Dimensional Requirements Form. The height limit for the R -15 zone district is 25 feet, not 28 feet. Furthermore, there are not combined front and rear or side setback requirements for the R -15 zone district. Also, Attachment E contains two proposed building envelopes with no explanation as to which one the applicant is proposing. Finally, the terminology in the application should be "setback" and not "building envelope" as building envelopes are more restrictive and typically not applied to areas in the City except Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the gross lot area is 22,665 square feet. After the exclusion of areas with a slope greater than 20% the lot area is represented to be 19,166. There is no supporting documentation regarding the lot area after slope reduction. Further, the existing allowable and proposed FARs do not take into account slope reduction on the site. Allowable and proposed floor area as well as lot area calculations will be verified when working drawings are submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. Park Fee – The applicant will be required to pay a Park Dedication Impact Fee for any additional bedrooms that are added. Residential Design Standards - Both houses will be required to comply with Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. Lighting Plan - Exterior lighting is required to meet Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code. Per that Section the applicant is required to submit a lighting plan with the PUD review. Staff feels a lighting plan, with cut sheets, can be submitted at the time of building permit submittal. Engineering: Encroachment – An encroachment license is needed for all improvements in the ROW including the berms. Site Distance – The building permit application must demonstrate that the berms do not obstruct the site distance for cars leaving the driveway. Driveway - Per the City code, driveways need to be setback 10 feet from the property line. As shown, the driveway is along the property line. -26- Water Dept: Abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. Parks Dept: As part of the building permit, the Parks Dept needs to review the ROW landscaping and irrigation system. Fire Dept: If the proposed structures have a floor area greater than 5000 sf, sprinkler systems will be needed. Sanitation District: (i) The existing 6 tap can be used to serve both proposed dwellings but a shared service agreement will be needed. (ii) Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase /DRC /517ParkCircle 27- F4 501 Park Circle 15,336 sq. ft. lot 2,699 sq. ft. home m lot lot . homes i ,7J., Ut 510 Park Circle Tri-Plex \ — 8,200 sq. ft. lot 1,591 sq. ft. /unit EKWIT E LOT SIZE ANALYSIS i 200 Park Circle 15,271 sq. ft. lot 3,373 sq. ft. home 200 Park Circle 15,856 sq. ft. lot 2;674 sq. ft. home 190 Park Circle 18,259 sq. ft. lot 3,004 sq. ft. home >> STAN EXHIBIT F Plann: SETBACK ANALYSIS Lands Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAST MuN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 4 February 2004 F: 970.9201628 E -MAIL: clauson @scaplanning.com WEE: �.scaplannmg.com Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback Variance Dear Scott: Attached are copies of a setback analysis we have prepared in support of this variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. As you can see from the analysis, there is little uniformity in the front setbacks. These vary from zero to almost fifty -five feet. However, a good number of these are less than ten feet, and the median setback of the nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10 -foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the front will enhance the public areas and open space of the tennis and club facilities to the rear of the parcel. In the case of Lot 2, the proposed 10 -foot set back allows the siting of the principal mass of the building on the plane of the street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area of the site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site - specific qualities of the proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have fimther questions about this matter. VS truly yours, Stan C son AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl. Cc: Applicants PLANNING AND DESIGAI SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS 7 TP X � a r A J WIE _ 61�I: Wagar /Deteweiler PUD Setback Analysis . cow� 1 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning 2 EXHIBIT G Commission at 4:30 pin in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. P &Z r P &Z MINUTES were Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Roger Haneman, and Jasmine Tygre. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:45 pm. Staff present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, Scott Woodford, Connnunity Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked for a legal definition of "actual use ". Johnson recalled from the Park Place review the zone district was office and the actual use did not figure into the equation or determination regarding the parking garage. Johnson said that during the Maroon Creek Club review the issue was that they were nominally lodge rooms but not actually being used as such and that was somehow deterniined on changing them to multi - family. Johnson wanted an understanding of what "actual use" means or was it nebulous. David Hoefer responded it wasn't considered nebulous; he suggested discussing it and coming back to the comnussion. MINUTES MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes from January 13, February 3 and 4, 2004; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 6 -0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jack Johnson, John Rowland and Ruth Kruger had conflicts with the Lodge. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/17/04): WAGAR PUD AMENDMENT — 517 Park Circle Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Wagar PUD amendment; public notice was received on February 17th. Scott Woodford stated the application was for a PUD amendment and GMQS Exemption to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots (11,237 and 11,428 square feet) in the R -15 zone district. The PUD was to establish smaller lot sizes and smaller front yard (from 25 to 10 feet) and side yard (from 10 to 5 feet) setbacks, which would be more in compliance with the neighborhood; there was no neighbor to impact. Woodford stated that the new single - family homes be hinted to the square footage of the duplex at 5700 square feet split between the 2 single- fanuly homes. The applicant proposed the FAR allowed for the lot sizes in the zone district on page 5 of the memo a chart showed the comparisons. The applicant proposed one lot at 11,237 square feet with a residence at 4,236 square feet and the other lot at 11,428 square feet with a 4,249 square foot house. The R -15 zone district allowed 15,000 2 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 square foot lot with a FAR of 4,500 square feet. The staff recommendation was one lot at 11,237 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR and the other at 11,428 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR. Woodford stated that if P &Z approved the staff recommendation then the applicant would not have to pay an additional fee -in -lieu for any additional amount of square footage. Woodford noted that there was a condition in the resolution addressing this issue. Stan Clauson, planner for applicant, introduced the property owners Deborah Burek and Rich Wagar. Clauson noted that Mr. Wagar had an easement from the county for the parcel of land next door for his driveway. Clauson explained that there was currently no sidewalk and visibility was poor on Park Circle for pedestrians walking on the roadway; as part of this proposal curbs and sidewalks would be installed along Park Circle, which would enhance the pedestrian environment. Clauson said they found nothing in the comp plan that recommended that the floor area be less than the floor area allowed in the R -15 zone district; they relied on the chart for a reasonable floor area with a slope analysis reduction calculation. Clauson provided maps, elevations and drawings. Clauson explained the need for the square footage. Rich Wagar supplied 3 letters. Deborah Burek stated that they wanted to enhance the area because there was a constant flow of traffic and it would be an improvement very aesthetically done. Burek said they were building a green structure. Roger Haneman asked the FAR for one home with a single lot of 22,000 square feet. Scott Woodford answered the allowable square footage was 4,920. Dylan Johns asked what would be the actual allowable floor area for that lot size (11,237 square feet) that the applicant was proposing, what would be allowed under the zoning. Woodford said there was a different floor area based on a lot size in the code minus the slope reduction, which was the number in the chart (2,880 square feet). Johns asked if the slope reduction applies to the lot before the lot split. Woodford replied that was correct then staff averaged the floor area between the two lots. Jasmine Tygre noted the numbers were troublesome; there were a lot of numbers with three resulting FARs. Tygre.said her question was similar because on the chart the resulting FAR, for example, there was a 15,000 square foot lot with an allowable floor area of 4500 square feet and the resulting FAR would be .30; she asked why they didn't take that amount and apply it to the actual lot sizes. Tygre noted there was a sliding scale that gave preference to smaller lots. Woodford replied that the lot sizes included the slope reduction in the FAR calculations; one 3 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 lot was flat and the total was averaged at 2,880 each. Tygre noted the sidewalk provision was not specified in the resolution. Woodford replied that it was on the plans and could be added to the resolution. Tygre requested the condition be added. Jack Johnson asked the purpose behind slope reduction. Woodford responded to reduce any amount of FAR on steep slopes and encourage building on the flat parts of the sites and discourage building on steep slopes; there was a maximum reduction of 25 %. Johnson asked if the lot next door was owned by the city and in the county and what was the square footage. Clauson replied it was in the county and owned by the county; it was 6,000 square feet. Johnson asked if there was an attempt to purchase from the county. Clauson answered there has been some discussion with the county but there has been no resolution. Johnson said if it were purchased then the lots would be less short of the 15,000 square feet than it is today. Clauson replied that was correct; there would be a considerable amount of process before that lot could be added to the PUD and this would need to annexed into the city so it was prohibitive to this application because the Detweilers need a home. Johnson said there were no zones between R -6 and R -15. There were no public comments but there were 3 letters entered into the public record (1) Gerry Wendell supporting the lot split (2) H. Montgomery Loud supported the lot spit (3) Charles Rowers in favor of the lot split. Ruth Kruger said that this proposal was good for the neighborhood and will improve the overall look; she will support the proposal. Johns said that if they were putting in sidewalks they would be giving back to the community. Johns noted this neighborhood was surrounded by R -6 and RMF so he didn't see why they should have anything punitive; if they built a bigger house then they would have to pay the mitigation as stated in the code. John Rowland stated that he was in favor of all of the issues but felt a little uncomfortable with the numbers that staff suggested at 2880 square feet given the size of the lot and given the square footage that the applicant asked for. Johnson stated that he didn't see where anyone was being punished; if you don't have a big enough lot then you can't build that square footage, if you are in R -15 you need a 15,000 square foot lot. Johnson said that what was proposed was better than what exists; he could support the staff recommendation of dividing the duplex into two getting the 2880 square feet and he could support Jasmine's suggestion of using multiplier of .3 for the desirable FAR for a 15,000 square foot lot and to the lot sizes as proposed. Johnson asked if the slope reduction could be disregarded. El ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 Woodford replied that it could not. Johnson said that he was trying to compromise what staff suggested and the applicant requested; his figures were 3371 and 3428 square feet and with slope reduction it would be 2578 square feet. Haneman asked if R -15 was the zone on the property when it was annexed into the city. Allgaier answered yes. Haneman said that if you were looking at an empty lot with out the displacement of people and requested cutting the lot in half in the R -15 zone district, it wouldn't be allowed because the lots were 11,000 plus square feet. Haneman said that he was going along the lines where Jack was with the FAR at somewhere in between the applicant's request and the staff recommendation but wasn't sure how to arrive at that number. Johnson explained the .30 calculations, which would be 3370.1 square feet and 3400 square feet. Haneman said that number was almost right on with the square footage of the home across the street, which is currently the in the area according the map. Jasmine was inclined to agree with Roger and Jack on the square footage because these were two non - conforming lots, which were smaller than what was allowed. David Hoefer noted that the language could read the number of square feet less the slope reduction calculated by staff. Woodford suggested stating the FAR as supported by the commission. Steve Skadron said that the applicant did a good job of minimizing the impact on the property, which was a public benefit however he sees legitimacy in Roger and Jack's calculations but has an issue with not abiding by staff's numbers and setting precedent by manipulating numbers. Discussion: Johnson said they have come up with a middle ground between staff's recommendation and the applicant's request. Kruger said it was a compromise that fit into the neighborhood. Skadron noted it was based on .30 FAR. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #5, 2004 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of building permit for either or both of the proposed single-family residences: (a) Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. (b) Both of the new single-family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. (c) An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. (d) The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (e) An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right -of -way, including the landscape berms. 0 The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system 5 ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 located in the city right -of -way. (g) The building permit plans shall ref ect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. (h) The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. (i) All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The f oor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, of the proposed single-family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 square feet each, which is roughly the result of a f oor area ratio of .30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this f oor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single-family residence on the newly created lots, the applicants shall construct a f ve (5) foot wide sidewalk, in compliance with City of Aspen standards, along Park Circle for the portion of the subject property that fronts Park Circle. Seconded by Roger Haneman. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Haneman, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes; Johnson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7 -0. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (12/16/04,01/06/04,01/20,04102/03/04, 02/03/04): LODGE AT ASPEN CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Lodge at Aspen; Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson and John Rowland recused themselves. Scott Woodford handed out letters from the public that were received today. Tygre stated that the letters would be introduced into the record just prior to public comments. Woodford explained the conditions in the resolution have been fine tuned over the course of the public hearings. Through the course of the review from P &Z, staff and the public the impacts of the proposed building on some of the neighbors consequently a condition was structured required the applicant reduce the impacts to the neighbors (condition #4a). One of the conditions was to reduce this 5 -story portion down a story and remove the covered entryway in order to increase the setback. Woodford said the condition stated the areas closest to the property line be reduced in height and stepped back. A condition relates to Juan Street Affordable Housing with increased setbacks between the Lodge and the northwest corner of Juan Street Affordable Housing stepping back the fourth story to provide additional space between the structures. The bridge over Juan Street was a big concern and it was suggested to remove the bridge entirely or reduce the height of the bridge to one story to lessen the impacts. The safety of South Aspen Street was another concern but snow melting the street was not recommended by the city of 6 EXHIBIT H: Charles ma. Ro` mE , LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS February 24, 2004 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Scott Woodford, Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar /Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado Dear Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission: My name is Charles M. Rowars and I reside at 131 Smuggler Mountain Road, Aspen. My home directly overlooks the residence where Rich Wagar lived and wants to live. I am writing to you to express my support of the proposed lot split at 517 Park Circle. I have no opposition to the lot split and your recommendation of the lot split will provide an opportunity for improved redevelopment of the fire- damaged duplex. The resulting two houses will be more in keeping with the open qualities of the neighborhood. I have also been informed that the planning staff is proposing to restrict the available floor area for both properties to that of the original duplex. I feel that the restriction as currently proposed by the planning staff is inappropriate. It is my opinion that such a restriction is unfair to the parties involved and that both parties should be allowed to develop homes in accordance to the floor area tables appropriate to the current zone district. Very truly yours, Is/Char/es M. Rowars Charles M. Rowars 131 Smuggler Mountain Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 970 - 925 -8037 H. Montgomery Loud 401 Smuggler Mtn. Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 February 17, 2004 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Scott Woodford, Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler Lot Split and PDD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: Since we have lived in the neighborhood we certainly have the highest regard for the quality of our neighbors' homes. The proposed lot split allowing separate dwellings will provide for improved replacement of the building with two separate and more open sites. This would enhance the overall appearance of this extensive view plane. Very truly yours, H. Montgomer Loud /HML 02/19/2004 14:58 FAX 702 362 4348 Feb -19- 2004 1 4 3 P M HUNTINGTON DEVELOPMENT G MEMORANDUM Date: February 17, 2004 } To; Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Attn: Scott Woodford, Planner From: Gerry Wendel Re: Wagar/Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado 101 002 No-3957 P. 2 I drive by 517 Park Circle two or three times a day as 1 reside at 201 Silverlode Drive, Aspen. I am writing this letter to express my support of the•p'roposed lot split_ I am of the belief that two single - family hornes instead of one large duplex will improve the visual .impact to the neighborhood. I have also been informed that the planning staff has proposed restricting the available floor area to bo th properties to that of the original duplex_ I believe that this is an inappropriate restriction, as the resulting houses will be too small to provide for a reasonable return on their investment. It is my opinion, as a neighbor, that all properties in this district should be allowed to develop homes of reasonable size, in accordance with the floor area tables appropn a to the zone district. Ge ly "Yen" I QZ� y9�il 1k 4 DEVELOPMENT ORDER Of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order ", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders ", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights ", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site - specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three -year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site - specific development plan as described below: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, 517 Park Circle, Aspen, CO, 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number The North and South Condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums, 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Co. Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property PUD Amendment, Subdivision and GMOS Exemptions approval for subdivision of the existing duplex lot into two single- family lots Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and /or Attachment Describing Plan Ordinance No. 10 -2004, Approved on 4/19/04 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) May 1, 2004 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) May 1, 2007 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 22 °a day of April 2004, by the City of Aspen Community Ann Woods, Community—Development Director PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: The north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums, 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Co., by Ordinance of the Aspen City Council, numbered 10. For further information contact Scott Woodford at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. located at 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920 -5102. s /City of Aspen Account Published in The Aspen Times on May 1, 2004 W RESOLUTION N0. 5, (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 517 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH AND SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, CITY . OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-074-01-0161017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clausen Associates, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single - family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single - family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.570 of the Land Use Code, GMQS Exemption approval may be granted by the Community Development Director; however, according to Section 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code the applicant has agreed to combine this administrative review with the other land use approvals sought; and, WHEREAS, the PUD Amendment and Subdivision review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to March 2, 2004 where, by a seven to zero (7 -Q) vote, recommended City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for the property at 517 Park Circle, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1: The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or both of the proposed single- family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single- family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. e. An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right -of -way, including the landscape berms. f. The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located in the city right -of -way. g. The building perniit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, of the proposed single - family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 square feet each, which is roughly the result of a floor area ratio of .30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single- family residence on the newly created lots, the applicants shall construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk, in compliance with City of Aspen standards, along Park Circle for the portion of the subject property that fronts Park Circle. Section 2: This Resolution 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 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution 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. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on February 17, 2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Ll LL= llhz� David Hoefer, Asst. C y Attorney Jasmine Tygre, Chair ATTEST: 641kkie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Scott Woodford, City Plannefbn RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE, 2ND READING, PUBLIC HEARING, PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION; ORDINANCE NO. 10 , SERIES 2004 DATE: April 19, 2004 y- �¢ y4 A view of the existing, fire damaged duplex from Park Circle. The applicants propose to tear down the duplex, subdivide the property into two lots and construct two single - family residences. The driveway shown will be abandoned and moved to the south for access to one home. while the existing access to the north will lenhain Ibr access to the other. PROJECT: 517 PARK CIRCLE REQUEST SUMMARY: PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot into two single - family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single - family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than required minimum lot sizes and reduced front and north side setbacks. APPLICANT: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clawson Associates ZONE DISTRICT: R -15, PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums P &Z ACTION: Approval with conditions on 3/2/04 (7 -0 to approve) STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, RECOMMENDATION: SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTION, WITH CONDITIONS - 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 e„ PROJECT SUMMARY: On April 12, 2003, a fire occurred in the duplex at 517 Park Circle, rendering the structure uninhabitable. Instead of re- building the non - conforming duplex (non- conforming due to its floor area) in its original configuration, which would be allowed by the Land Use Code, the applicants wish to use the two development rights on the property from the duplex and subdivide the property into two lots in order to build two single - family residences. The two lots that the applicant proposes to create aresl l 237 square feet and 11,428 square feet, which are smaller than what the existing R -15, PUD zoning on the property requires for minimum lot area per dwelling unit (which is 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit). Single- family residences of 4,098 square feet are proposed to be constructed on each lot. The house sizes were arrived at by using the R -15 zone district external floor area ratios and include mandatory reductions in floor area for steep slopes. The steep slopes are entirely located on proposed Lot 2, however, the applicants have agreed to split the allowed floor area in half. Setting the substandard lot size and shifting a portion of the floor area from one lot to another is achieved through the PUD process. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval to establish reduced front setbacks (from 25' to 10') and north side yard setbacks (from 10' to 5'). Two separate, 12' wide driveways are proposed to access each lot from Park Circle and a 5' wide sidewalk aligned on the back of the curb on Park Circle is also included in the plan. PLANNING AND ZONING CONINUSSION ACTION: l'he P &Z_, voted to approve the application on March 2, 2004 by a vote of 7 -0. however. thcv chose to modify one key condition of approval. Whereas, the applicant proposed a .36 tloor area ratio (FAR) for the new single - family structures to be constructed on the new lots and staff recommended a .26, the P &Z voted to approve a.30 FAR. In making their decision, the P &Z indicated that a compromise between the staff and applicant was appropriate, given the sub- standard lot sizes and the desire to allow the applicants a reasonable floor area allowance (see additional discussion later in the report and the attached P &Z minutes for more details on this issue). APPLICABLE LAND USE 'SECTIONS: In order to accommodate the above development request, the following land use approvals are required: 1) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: In accordance with Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, a PUD Amendment may be utilized to establish alternative dimensional standards. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing PUD in order to allow the proposed lots to be less than the required 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit and to reduce the front and north side yard setback. Final Review Authority: City Council. 2) GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) EXEMPTIONS: Per Section 26.470.070(B) of the Code, a GMQS Exemption may be requested for the 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 construction of a "Detached Single - Family or Duplex Dwelling Unit". The applicant requests this extension for the construction of two single - family dwelling units after demolition of the existing duplex, which is exempt from GMQS, subject to compliance with certain standards (staff review of those standards follows in the report). Final Review Authority: Community Development Director. 3) SUBDIVISION: Section 26.480 of the Code pertains to Subdivision and subdivision review is required in this instance for the proposed split of the existing duplex lot into two single - family lots. Final Review Authority: City Council. EXISTING CONDITIONS /BACKGROUND INFORMATION: According to City files, the Sunny Park and Sunny Park North Subdivision were annexed into the City in 1966 and zoned later in 1967. Per the City GIS records, the duplex was constructed in 1981. A PUD overlay was established over this property at some point, however, city records do not indicate when this took place or for what reason. The applicants have an easement agreement with Pitkin County, who own the abutting property to the north, to utilize a portion of County property for landscaping and access purposes. At this point, the easement agreement between the applicants and the County will continue with the new subdivision, although the applicant will abandon the driveway access that utilizes County property so the driveway is completely on their property. The duplex is an existing non - conforming structure with respect to allowable floor area. According to the application, the duplex is 5,760 sq. ft. of floor area_ whereas the Code allows only 5.380 sq. IL. As a note. Section 26312.030 of the Code states that non - contbrming structures which are destroyed through "non - purposeful destruction'" may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty -Form months of the date of demolition. In other words, if the applicants wished to replace the duplex in its existing configuration, the Code would allow them to do so, regardless of its existing non- conforming structure status. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: According to the Code, among the purposes of the PUD is to encourage flexibility and innovation in development in order to meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and achieve a higher quality, more creative design and site planning. To help accomplish these and other goals, the PUD can be used to adjust the dimensional requirements of an underlying zone district. In this case, the applicant is using the PUD to establish site specific dimensional standards for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and the front and the north side yard setbacks. According to Section 26.445.020 of the Land Use Code, a development application for a PUD may be applied for on parcels over 27,000 square feet for the purposes of residential, commercial, tourist, or other development purposes. An application may be 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 applied for on a lot of less than 27,000 square feet, according to the Code, if the Community Development Director determines that the development of the property may have the ability to further the goals of the AACP and that the provisions of the PUD land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. The subject site is only 22,665 square feet. The Director allowed the applicant to proceed with this application despite the smaller site because of the probability that it could further the goals of the AACP. Staff has analyzed how the application furthers these goals below, along with an explanation of the PUD request and staffs position on the issue (also see Exhibit A for Staff Findings related to the PUD Review Standards): MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the R -15 zone district, the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 15,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting PUD approval to create two smaller lots, with one lot being 11,237 sq. ft. and the other 11,428 sq. ft.). STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT): Staff supports the request to establish smaller than minimum lot sizes because allowing the applicant to go from a duplex to two, single - family residences will further the goals of the AACP and be a benefit to the neighboring properties by breaking up the one large mass of the existing duplex into two smaller masses. As the applicant indicates in their support for the amendment, this change will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and will also help open up view corridors from the public street towards the mountains to the south and southwest. The AACP emphasizes the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the natural beauty and environment of' the Aspen area. In addition, the proposed smaller lot sizes are not grcatty out of compliance with the lot sizes of the surrounding single- family residences (see Cxhibit E for this comparison). Staff -s support of the smaller lot sizes through the PUD is, however, conditioned upon limiting the amount of floor area for the two proposed single - family dwelling units to the total amount of square footage in the original duplex. According to the application, the floor area for the existing duplex is 5,760 square feet. Staff recommends that the two single - family residences split this square footage in a manner chosen by the applicants. Staff proposes that the floor area of the new lots be limited to that of the existing duplex for the following reasons: The limitation would allow the project to better comply with the goals of the AACP. One of those goals, put forth by the applicant, was the enhancement of the neighborhood by splitting up the solid mass of the existing duplex into two, separate masses, thereby improving neighborhood aesthetics and opening up view - planes towards the ski mountain and Shadow Mountain. Staff agrees with this contention, but only if the existing duplex mass were split up between the new homes. If the new homes together are larger than the duplex they replaced (as proposed, the sum of the new single - family residences will be over 2,400 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 square feet more than the existing duplex), then the goal of reducing mass and opening up views has not been achieved. The floor area tables in each zone district of the Code are weighted towards allowing higher FAR's on smaller lots. So, the applicants proposal to use the R- 15 standards for allowable floor area on the smaller than required lots would result in a higher FAR than could be achieved if the lots actually met the required minimum of 15,000 sq. ft.. For example, on each of the two proposed lots (11,237 and 11,428 sq. ft.), the applicant proposes 4,098 sq. ft. of floor area — arrived at by using the floor area ratios from the R -15 zone district standards - resulting in a .36 FAR. If, however, the lots were to comply with the required minimum lot sizes in the zone district (15,000 sq. ft.), the allowed FAR would be only .30. Per staff's recommendation of limiting the new structures to 2,880 sq. ft., (which equates to half the size of the existing duplex) the resulting FAR would be .25 and .26. At the March 2" d public hearing, P &Z recommended a 30 FAR (equaling 3,400 sq. ft. of floor area) as a compromise between the applicant's proposal and the staffs recommendation. The chart below further illustrates the different FAR scenarios: Different Lot Size: Allowable Floor Resulting FAR: Scenarios: Area in R -15 Applicants Proposal: 11.237 sq. ft. 11.428 sq. ft. 4,098 sq. ft. 4,098 sq. ft. 36 36 Compliance with �10`t0 R- 15 Minimum 15,0110 sq. ft 4„5HQ sq. ft L.ot Size: Staff 1 1,237 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. 26 Recommendation: 11,428 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. 25 P &Z Recommendation: 1 t,237 sq. ft. 11,428 sq. ft. 3,400 sq. ft. 3,400 sq. ft. 30 Without the PUD allowing smaller than minimum lot sizes, two single - family structures would not be possible on this parcel. Since staff is recommending that the City relax its standards to allow the two - single family residences (in order to further the goals of the AACP and to provide a community benefit) in place of the duplex (a major- benefit to the applicants), staff feels it is appropriate to place reasonable limitations on the size of the new structures to help them better conform to the neighborhood and to preclude a situation where the applicant is further benefiting from the PUD by achieving a higher FAR than would be allowed if the proposed lots complied with the minimum lot size. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 �3 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: The following table summarizes the setback requirements in the R -15 zone district and the applicant's proposed setbacks for the two new lots: STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS): Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F, the median setback of the surrounding properties, while they vary from 0' up to 54', is 9.9'. In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape, rather than being setback 25'. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the existing house to the south. To offset this request for reduced setbacks off the north property line, the applicants have agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15' versus 10'). 2. GRONN -111 IMANAGENIENT QUOTA SYS LM ((.MQS): In order to obtain the dC%Clopnunt rights to build the single- family residences, an exemption to the GN1QS is necessary. The Following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): DETACHED SINGLE- FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT' According to Section 26.470.070(B), in order to qualify for a single- family exemption, the applicant shall have the following three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single - family dwelling unit being constructed. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 �R-15 Requirement: Proposed- Front Yard Setback 25' 10' Rear Yard Setback 10' �� 10' North Side Yard Setback 10' IF 5' South Side Yard Setback 10' 15' STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS): Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F, the median setback of the surrounding properties, while they vary from 0' up to 54', is 9.9'. In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape, rather than being setback 25'. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the existing house to the south. To offset this request for reduced setbacks off the north property line, the applicants have agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15' versus 10'). 2. GRONN -111 IMANAGENIENT QUOTA SYS LM ((.MQS): In order to obtain the dC%Clopnunt rights to build the single- family residences, an exemption to the GN1QS is necessary. The Following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): DETACHED SINGLE- FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT' According to Section 26.470.070(B), in order to qualify for a single- family exemption, the applicant shall have the following three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single - family dwelling unit being constructed. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 Per staff's recommendation of limiting the size of the two single - family residences. the above requirement is not applicable. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structures compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. Despite this, the applicant still qualifies for the exemption. If Council approves the applicant's proposal to allow the new single family homes to be larger than the floor area of the existing duplex, then the applicant would pay a fee in lieu for the amount of increase in floor area from the duplex to the new structures. 3. SUBDIVISION: Staff has reviewed all of the subdivision criteria in Exhibit C and have found the request to comply with all of the applicable criteria. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS: The DRC meeting was held on December 17, 2003. The comments from that meeting are attached in Exhibit D. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle, with conditions as put forth in the attached ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: '1 move to approve Ordinance No. Series of 2004. For Planned Unit Development (PI[ D) Amendment, Subdivision. and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle' A rr: wnMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings - Planned Unit Development Standards Exhibit B: Staff Findings - GMQS Exemption Exhibit C: Staff Findings — Subdivision Exhibit D: Referral (DRC) Comments Exhibit E: Lot Size Analysis Exhibit F: Setback Analysis Exhibit G: P &Z Minutes Exhibit H: Letters from Neighbors (Please bring Application from 1" Reading — If you need an extra copy, please contact me) 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 ORDINANCE N0. lam, (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 517 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH AND SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737- 074 -01- 016/017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clausen Associates, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single- family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single- family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering. Building Department. Dire, Streets, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and. WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.570 of the Land Use Code, GMQS Exemption approval may be granted by the Community Development Director; however, - 8 - according to Section 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code the applicant has agreed to combine this administrative review with the other land use approvals sought; and, WHEREAS, the PUD Amendment and Subdivision review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to March 2, 2004 where, by a seven to zero (7 -0) vote, recommended City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council reviewed and considered the development proposal at a regular City Council meeting on April 19, 2004 and, by a vote of to L - J, approved this Ordinance (on Second Reading) for a PUD Amendment, Subdivision. and WdQS Exemption; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary tin' the promotion of public health. safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1• The approval is subject to the following conditions: Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or both of the proposed single - family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single - family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. -9- e. An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right -of -way, including the landscape berms. f. The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located in the city right -of -way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, of the proposed single - family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3(r-00 3,400 square feet each, which is roughly the result of a floor area ratio of .30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. �. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the Final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single - family residence on the newly created lots, the applicants shall construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk, in compliance with City of Aspen standards, along Park Circle for the portion of the subject property that fronts Park Circle. Section 2: 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. M Section 3• 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 22 °d day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this 19`" day of Apri l, 2004. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Itoch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcestor, City Attorney Ilelen Kalin Klanderud, \,1ayor .1 �N EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS: PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential'. Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area," which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The existin'_ character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single -lamik homes. I herc is no one prcXalcnt type of land use. The addition oi'thyo single- lamik residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore. be consistent with the character Of tile surrounding- area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The applicant is requesting exemption from the GMQS for construction of two detached single - family dwelling unit. 12- ti.. B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) Dimensional RequirementaneDistriet ieyliii Proposec> :. ement Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Lot I ......................... 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2 ......................... 15,000............... 11,428 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lot L ........................ 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2 ......................... 15,000............... 11,428 Minimum Lot width 75 feet 75 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 25 feet 10 feet Minimum North Side Yard Setback 10 feet 5 feet I Y1inimu111 South Side Yard Setback 10 feet 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 Feet 10 feet Maximum Height 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance b/w Buildings on 10 feet 10 feet the Lot Minimum Percent of Open Space No Requirement No Requirement 4,080 sq. ft., plus 7 sq. ft. /each add'I. 100 sq. ft. in lot area 2,880 square feet per Allowable Floor Area (FAR) up to max. of 4,500 residences sq. ft. (minus slope reduction) Minimum Off Street Parking 2 spaces /unit 2 spaces /unit 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. 13- b) Natural or man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES Generally, staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards (specifically with regard to the smaller than minimum lot sizes) are appropriate for the site for the above characteristics and the proposed lot sizes are in general conformance with surrounding properties. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES With the exception of the smaller than minimum lot sizes, the proposal complies with all of the required dimensional standards for the R -15 zone district. With respect to the lot sizes, staff has conditioned the approval to limit the size of the two single- family residences to the total size of the existing duplex. With this limit, staff feels that an appropriate scale, mass, site coverage and open space for the neighborhood will result. 3. The appropriate number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) "fhe probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non - residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) Tlie availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The applicant proposes to comply with the parking requirement in the Code for residential uses, which is 3 spaces per unit. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. -I4- b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A Adequate public facilities are either already in place or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense in order to meet the expected demand. No reductions in density, therefore, are required. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There exists no natural hazards or critical site features as the site has already been developed. No reductions in density, therefore. are rcquiral. 6. "fhe maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The applicant does not propose an increase in the amount of allowed density. 15 - C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A There are no existing natural or man -made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES In this instance, it is an advantage to the neighborhood and community to have the structures separated to open up vistas and open space which are currently being negatively impacted by the existing duplex. i. Structures are appropriately oriented to public sheets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? � Yts 'File proposed lot layout improves the orientation to the public street over the existing situation. The current duplex is not parallel with the street. The new lots will allow the new structures to be parallel with the street, which would comply with the requirement of the Residential Design Standards of having structures properly oriented to the street. With the addition of sidewalks along the front of the lots, the new lots will provide increased visual interest and engagement to _Redestrian and motorists. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Both structures will be able to be served by emergency and service vehicles directly from the public street. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 16- STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES A sidewalk along the Park Circle will be constructed. The individual structures will be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to handicap access. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Each structure constructed on the newly created lots will be required to comply with all Building Departments requirements related to site drainage. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no non - residential uses proposed. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: I . The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves cxistims si«nitiamt vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and %ariet\ of ornamental plant species suitable I'or the Aspen area climate. ?. Significant existing natural and nun -made site features, which provide: uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. ;. "Elie proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? � YES According to the application, some of the existing vegetation will need to be moved around on the site to accommodate the new configuration and the new sidewalk. There exists no "significant" natural or man -made features requiring preservation. Some landscaping along the edge of the property fronting Park Circle is proposed to help provide some screening and privacy to the structures._ E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan - 17 - an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less - intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES The application doesn't include any specific building plans for the two proposed single- family residences as they haven't been designed yet. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Standards F. Li =htin . The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: L All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. bighting of site fentureS, structures. and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. ?. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site Ceantres- buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: DOES [T COD'IPLY? YES No lighting plan was submitted with this application as the proposed structures have not yet been designed. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure they comply with the lighting ordinance. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. ia- r�^ 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreational area. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: DOt:S IT CoMPLI'? I Yl:s According to the applicant and the per the review of the Development ReNic %N Committee (DRC), adequate utilities and public facilities exist to serve the proposed development. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Both of the proposed single - family structures will have adequate driveway access off of Park Circle. The City Engineer has requested that the applicant maintain adequate site distance at the point where the driveways to this project intersect with Park Circle, which may include pruning or moving existing landscaping. In addition, sidewalks along the Park Circle in front of the property will be installed by the applicant, thereby improving pedestrian access and safety in an area of the street that is narrow and on a curve. -19- 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: DOE5 IT COMPLY? YES The two access points to the individual lots should not create any traffic congestion due to their low density and to the limited number of trips in and out of the site that are created by the average single- family.house. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY'? I YES Criteria 43, #4, and 45 arc not applicable in this case. Regarding criteria #4, the applicant is )io)osin,l to install a sidewalk alonls Park Circle for the portion that fronts the pronerh. .1. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases_ 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE No phasing of construction is anticipated at this time. -20- 4d EXHIBIT B STAFF FINDINGS: GMQS EXEMPTION Section 26.470.070 of the Land Use Code applies in this situation, as described below. B. Detached single-family or duplex dwelling unit. The following shall be exempt from the growth management scoring and competition procedures: 1) the construction of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling on a lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section 26.480.020(E), or 2) the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling, or 3) the remodel or expansion of a single- family dwelling into a duplex dwelling. This exemption shall not be applied to any lot for which any other development allotment is currently being sought or is approved. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall be granted only if the following standards are met. 1. Single- family. In order to qualify for a single - family exemption, the applicant shall have three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520: b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fcc pursuant to the Aspen /Pitkin County 1 1 0 using Authority Guidelines. as amended: or c. recording a resident- occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single-family dwelling unit being constructed. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The portion of the section above related to "the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling ", is applicable in this case and provides the exemption the applicant requests. As the Community Development Department is Stipulating that the floor area of the proposed single - family residences to be constructed on the newly created lots be limited to the amount of floor area of the existing duplex, there are no requirements for providing and ADU or paying the fee in lieu in order to qualify for the GMQS Exemption. Per the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structure compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. 21- ExHIBIT C STAFF FINDINGS: SUBDIVISION The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential ". Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area, " which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COIMPLI ? I YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single- family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single - family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMP_ LY? I YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. -22- STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES All applicable requirements, including with the zoning requirements of the R -15 zone district are being met with the exception of the minimum lot sizes, which are being established through the PUD process. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Although the site does contain some areas of steep slope, the property has already been developed with the existing duplex without any problems from natural hazards, so staff is confident that the site is suitable for development. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING: I DoES IT COMPLY? j Yes Staff beliCVCS that the subdivision has been designed to avoid all of the above spatial patterns. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.530 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: I. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. - 23 - D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The standards of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, are not applicable because there is no replacement housing involved. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may snake a cash payment in -lien of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in -lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A I.ven though a new subdivision is being created, no additional residential units are being created above and beyond what exists on the site nov <. The purpose of the school land dedication fees is to ensure that the current level of service is maintained as development occurs and school enrollment grows. As there is not uet new growth occurring with this proposal, staff would interpret the requirement to not be applicable in this instance. 24- EXHIBIT D DRC MINUTES MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: December 17, 2003 Re: 12/17/03 DRC Minutes: 517 Park Circle — PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMQS Attendees: Scott Woodford, Case Planner - Community Development Department Nick Adeh, Engineering Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Phil Overeynder, Water Department Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District Brian Flynn, Parks Department Ld vanWulraven. Eire Department Denis Murray, Building Department Janette Whitcomb, Environmental I lealth 'tiro Ware, Parking Stan Clauson, representative for applicant At the December 17, 2003 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project: 517 Park Circle — PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMQS: As proposed, the burnt duplex on Park Circle will be replaced with two single - family residences. The lots are undersized for zone district. DRC COMMENTS Zoning: • 517 Park Circle is located in the R -15 PUD zone district that has the following dimensional requirements: 25 - Setbacks: Front Yard - 25 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Rear Yard - 10 feet Height - 25 feet The application packet has several errors as it relates to the dimensional requirements on Attachment B— Dimensional Requirements Form. The height limit for the R -15 zone district is 25 feet, not 28 feet. Furthermore, there are not combined front and rear or side setback requirements for the R -15 zone district. Also, Attachment E contains two proposed building envelopes with no explanation as to which one the applicant is proposing. Finally, the terminology in the application should be "setback" and not "building envelope" as building envelopes are more restrictive and typically not applied to areas in the City except Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the gross lot area is 22,665 square feet. After the exclusion of areas with a slope greater than 20% the lot area is represented to be 19,166. There is no supporting documentation regarding the lot area after slope reduction. Further, the existing allowable and proposed FARs do not take into account slope reduction on the site. Allowable and proposed floor area as well as lot area calculations will be verified when working drawings are submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this Icecl of review. Park Fee – The applicant will be required to pay a Park Dedication Impact Fee for any additional bedrooms that are added. Residential Design Standards - Both houses will be required to comply with Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. Lighting Plan - Exterior lighting is required to meet Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code. Per that Section the applicant is required to submit a lighting plan with the PUD review. Staff feels a lighting plan, with cut sheets, can be submitted at the time of building permit submittal. Engineering: • Encroachment – An encroachment license is needed for all improvements in the ROW including the berms. • Site Distance – The building permit application must demonstrate that the berms do not obstruct the site distance for cars leaving the driveway. • Driveway - Per the City code, driveways need to be setback 10 feet from the property line. As shown, the driveway is along the property line. 26- Water Dept: Abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. Parks Dept: As part of the building permit, the Parks Dept needs to review the ROW landscaping and irrigation system. Fire Dept: If the proposed structures have a floor area greater than 5000 sf, sprinkler systems will be needed. Sanitation District: (i) The existing 6" tap can be used to serve both proposed dwellings but a shared service agreement will be needed. (ii) Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase /DRC /517ParkCircle _27_ 4 j�/ '.Ci .., r /Y Apartments aJ Al e 4 I I MMI n 12g A .2 ��47 el 501 Park Circle 15,336 sq. ft. lot 2,699 sq. ft, home Subject Site 11,207 sq. ft. lot 111,428 sq. ft. lot X 4,200 approx. ExmBIT \1 LOT SIZE -ANALySIS F2 Par'- Circle 00 Park Circle 15,271 sq. ft. lot 3,373 sq. it. home 200 Park Circle T 15,856 sq. ft. lot 2,674 sq. ft. home 190 Par -k Cli I C I e m259 sq. ft.lot 3,004 sq. ft. home -�� 1'\ \,,x 510 E-% y Park Circle Tri-Plex 8,200 sq. ft. lot 1,591 sq. ft. /unit VA It N ru rn > Nit "0 n R" Is .-J �.A D BM wE 5 / r n 5 j�/ '.Ci .., r /Y Apartments aJ e I I MMI n 12g A .2 ��47 el 501 Park Circle 15,336 sq. ft. lot 2,699 sq. ft, home Subject Site 11,207 sq. ft. lot 111,428 sq. ft. lot X 4,200 approx. ExmBIT \1 LOT SIZE -ANALySIS F2 Par'- Circle 00 Park Circle 15,271 sq. ft. lot 3,373 sq. it. home 200 Park Circle T 15,856 sq. ft. lot 2,674 sq. ft. home 190 Par -k Cli I C I e m259 sq. ft.lot 3,004 sq. ft. home -�� 1'\ \,,x 510 E-% y Park Circle Tri-Plex 8,200 sq. ft. lot 1,591 sq. ft. /unit VA It N ru rn > Nit "0 n R" Is .-J �.A D BM wE 5 / r n 5 j�/ '.Ci .., r aJ e 4 February 2004 Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback Variance Dear Scott: " STAN EXHIBIT F Mann: SETBACK ANALYSIS Lands Transpo Cation Studies Project Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970 925,2323 FA , 970.920.1628 E -MAIL: clauson@scaplanning. com WEB '.w ..scaplanning.com Attached are copies of a setback analysis we have prepared in support of this variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. As you can see from the analysis, there is little uniformity in the front setbacks. These vary from zero to almost fifty -five feet. However, a good number of these are less than ten feet, and the median setback of the nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10 -foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the front will enhance the public areas and open space of the tennis and club facilities to the rear of the parcel. In the case of Lot 2, the proposed 10 -foot set back allows the siting of the principal mass of the building on the plane of the street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area of the site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site - specific qualities of the proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have further questions about this matter. Ve truly yours, Stan Cla son, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl. Cc: Applicants _ PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS V T D r� u Wagar /Deteweiler PUD Y__� �M. comw,no Setback Analysis I COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02, 2004 Jasnune Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning 2 EXHIBIT G Com nission at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. P &Z r P &Z MINUTES were Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Roger Haneman, and Jasmine Tygre. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:45 pm. Staff present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, Scott Woodford, Coniinunity Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked for a legal definition of "actual use ". Johnson recalled from the Park Place review the zone district was office and the actual use did not figure into the equation or deternunation regarding the panting garage. Johnson said that during the Maroon Creek Club review the issue was that they were nominally lodge rooms but not actually being used as such and that was somehow determined on changing them to multi - family. Johnson wanted an understanding of what "actual use" ineans or was it nebulous. David Hoefer responded it wasn't considered nebulous; he suggested discussing it and coning back to the comnussion. MINUTES MOTION.- Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes front January 13, February 3 and 4, 2004; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 6 -0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jack Johnson, John Rowland and Ruth Kruger had conflicts with the Lodge. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/171/04): NVAGAR PUD AMENDMENT — 517 Park Circle Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing on the Wagar PUD amendment; public notice was received on February 17`h. Scott Woodford stated the application was for a PUD amendment and GMQS Exemption to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots (11,237 and 11,428 square feet) in the R -15 zone district. The PUD was to establish smaller lot sizes and smaller front yard (from 25 to 10 feet) and side yard (from 10 to 5 feet) setbacks, which would be more in compliance with the neighborhood; there was no neighbor to impact. Woodford stated that the new single- family homes be limited to the square footage of the duplex at 5700 square feet split between the 2 single-family homes. The applicant proposed the FAR allowed for the lot sizes in the zone district on page 5 of the memo a chart showed the comparisons. The applicant proposed one lot at 11,237 square feet with a residence at 4,236 square feet and the other lot at 11,428 square feet with a 4,249 square foot house. The R -15 zone district allowed 15,000 square foot lot with a FAR of 4,500 square feet. The staff recommendation was one lot at 11,237 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR and the other at 11,428 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR. Woodford stated that if P &Z approved the staff recommendation then the applicant would not have to pay an additional fee -in -lieu for any additional amount of square footage. Woodford noted that there was a condition in the resolution addressing this issue. Stan Clauson, planner for applicant, introduced the property owners Deborah Burek and Rich Wagar. Clauson noted that Mr. Wagar had an easement from the county for the parcel of land next door for his driveway. Clauson explained that there was currently no sidewalk and visibility was poor on Park Circle for pedestrians walking on the roadway; as part of this proposal curbs and sidewalks would be installed along Park Circle, which would enhance the pedestrian environment. Clauson said they found nothing in the comp plan that recommended that the floor area be less than the floor area allowed in the R -15 zone district; they relied on the chart for a reasonable floor area with a slope analysis reduction calculation. Clauson provided maps, elevations and drawings. Clauson explained the need for the square footage. Rich Wagar supplied 3 letters. Deborah Burek stated that they wanted to enhance the area because there was a constant flow of traffic and it would be an improvement very aesthetically done. Burek said they were building a green structure. Roger Haneman asked the FAR for one home with a single lot of 22,000 square feet. Scott Woodford answered the allowable square footage was 4,920. Dylan Johns asked what would be the actual allowable floor area for that lot size (11,237 square feet) that the applicant was proposing, what would be allowed under the zoning. Woodford said there was a different floor area based on a lot size in the code minus the slope reduction, which was the number in the chart (2,880 square feet). Johns asked if the slope reduction applies to the lot before the lot split. Woodford replied that was correct then staff averaged the floor area between the two lots. Jasmine Tygre noted the numbers were troublesome; there were a lot of numbers with three resulting FARs. Tygre said her question was similar because on the chart the resulting FAR, for example, there was a 15,000 square foot lot with an allowable floor area of 4500 square feet and the resulting FAR would be .30; she asked why they didn't take that amount and apply it to the actual lot sizes. Tygre noted there was a sliding scale that gave preference to smaller lots. Woodford replied that the lot sizes included the slope reduction in the FAR calculations; one 3 lot was flat and the total was averaged at 2,880 each. Tygre noted the sidewalk provision was not specified in the resolution. Woodford replied that it was on the plans and could be added to the resolution. Tygre requested the condition be added. Jack Johnson asked the purpose behind slope reduction. Woodford responded to reduce any amount of FAR on steep slopes and encourage building on the flat parts of the sites and discourage building on steep slopes; there was a maximum reduction of 25 %. Johnson asked if the lot next door was owned by the city and in the county and what was the square footage. Clauson replied it was in the county and owned by the county; it was 6,000 square feet. Johnson asked if there was an attempt to purchase from the county. Clauson answered there has been some discussion with the county but there has been no resolution. Johnson said if it were purchased then the lots would be less short of the 15,000 square feet than it is today. Clauson replied that was correct; there would be a considerable amount of process before that lot could be added to the PUD and this would need to annexed into the city so it was prohibitive to this application because the Detweilers need a home. Johnson said there were no zones between R -6 and R -15. There were no public comments but there were 3 letters entered into the public record (1) Gerry Wendell supporting the lot split (2) H. Montgomery Loud supported the lot spit (3) Charles Rowers in favor of the lot split. Ruth Kruger said that this proposal was good for the neighborhood and %will improve the overall look; she will support the proposal. Jolns said that if they were putting in sidewalks they would be giving back to the community. Johns noted this neighborhood was surrounded by R -6 and RMF so he didn't see why they should have anything punitive; if they built a bigger house then they would have to pay the mitigation as stated in the code. John Rowland stated that he was in favor of all of the issues but felt a little uncomfortable with the numbers that staff suggested at 2880 square feet given the size of the lot and given the square footage that the applicant asked for. Johnson stated that he didn't see where anyone was being punished; if you don't have a big enough lot then you can't build that square footage, if you are in R -15 you need a 15,000 square foot lot. Johnson said that what was proposed was better than what exists; he could support the staff recommendation of dividing the duplex into two getting the 2880 square feet and he could support Jasmine's suggestion of using multiplier of .3 for the desirable FAR for a 15,000 square foot lot and to the lot sizes as proposed. Johnson asked if the slope reduction could be disregarded. M ASPEN PLANNINGONING COMIVIISSION Mitt fes MARCH 02 2004 Woodford replied that it could not. Johnson said that he was trying to compromise what staff suggested and the applicant requested; his figures were 3371 and 3428 square feet and with slope reduction it would be 2578 square feet. Haneman asked if R -15 was the zone on the property when it was annexed into the city. Allgaier answered yes. Haneman said that if you were looking at an empty lot with out the displacement of people and requested cutting the lot in half in the R -15 zone district, it wouldn't be allowed because the lots were 11,000 plus square feet. Haneman said that he was going along the lines where Jack was with the FAR at somewhere in between the applicant's request and the staff recommendation but wasn't sure how to arrive at that number. Johnson explained the .30 calculations, which would be 3370.1 square feet and 3400 square feet. Haneman said that number was almost right on with the square footage of the home across the street, which is currently the in the area according the map. Jasmine was inclined to agree with Roger and Jack on the square footage because these were two non - conforming lots, which were smaller than what was allowed. David Hoefer noted that the language could read. the number of square feet less the slope reduction calculated by staff. Woodford suggested stating the FAR as supported by the commission. Steve Skadron said that the applicant did a good job of minimizing the impact on the property, which was a public benefit however he sees legitimacy in Roger and Jacks calculations but has an issue with not abiding by staffs numbers and setting precedent by manipulating numbers. Discussion: Johnson said they have come up with a middle ground between staff's reconmendation and the applicant's request. Kruger said it was a compromise that fit into the neighborhood. Skadron noted it was based on .30 FAR. MOTION: Ruth Kruger moved to approve Resolution #5, 2004 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single-family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single-family residences with the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance ofa buildingpermit for either or both of the proposed single-family residences: (a) Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. (b) Both of the new single family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. (c) An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. (d) The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (e) An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right -of way, including the landscape berms. 69 The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system 5 ASPEN PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION Minutes MARCH 02 2004 located in the city right -of -way. (g) The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. (h) The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. (i) All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, of the proposed single-family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 square feet each, which is roughly the result of a floor area ratio of .30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office ofPitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single-family residence on the newly created lots, the applicants shall construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk, in compliance with City of Aspen standards, along Park Circle for the portion of the subject property that . fronts Park Circle. Seconded by Roger Haneman. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Haneman, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Kruger, yes; Johnson, yes; Tygre, yes. APPROVED 7 -0. CONTI- ED PUBLIC HEARING (12/16/04, 01/06/04, 01/20,04, 02/03/04, 02,03"04): LODGE AT ASPEN CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for the Lodge at Aspen; Ruth Kruger, Jack Johnson and Jolul Rowland recused themselves. Scott Woodford handed out letters from the public that were received today. Tygre stated that the letters would be introduced into the record just prior to public comments. Woodford explained the conditions in the resolution have been fine tuned over the course of the public hearings. Through the course of the review from P &Z, staff and the public the impacts of the proposed building on some of the neighbors consequently a condition was structured required the applicant reduce the impacts to the neighbors (condition #4a). One of the conditions was to reduce this 5 -story portion down a story and remove the covered entryway in order to increase the setback. Woodford said the condition stated the areas closest to the property line be reduced in height and stepped back. A condition relates to Juan Street Affordable Housing with increased setbacks between the Lodge and the northwest comer of Juan Street Affordable Housing stepping back the fourth story to provide additional space between the structures. The bridge over Juan Street was a big concern and it was suggested to remove the bridge entirely or reduce the height of the bridge to one story to lessen the impacts. The safety of South Aspen Street was another concern but snow melting the street was not recommended by the city of rte, Charles February 24, 2004 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Scott Woodford, Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar /Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado Dear Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission: _ EXHIBIT H: LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS My name is Charles M. Rowars and I reside at 131 Smuggler Mountain Road, Aspen. My home directly overlooks the residence where Rich Wagar lived and wants to live. I am writing to you to express my support of the proposed lot split at 517 Park Circle. I have no opposition to the lot split and your recommendation of the lot split will provide an opportunity for improved redevelopment of the fire- damaged duplex. The resulting two houses will be more in keeping with the open qualities of the neighborhood. I have also been informed that the planning staff is proposing to restrict the available floor area for both properties to that of the original duplex. I feel that the restriction as currently proposed by the planning staff is inappropriate. It is my opinion that such a restriction is unfair to the parties involved and that both parties should be allowed to develop homes in accordance to the floor area tables appropriate to the current zone district. Very truly yours, /s/ Charles M. Rowars Charles M. Rowars 131 Smuggler Mountain Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 970- 925 -8037 H. Montgomery Loud 401 Smuggler Mtn. Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 February 17, 2004 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Scott Woodford, Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: Since we have lived in the neighborhood we certainly have the highest regard for the quality of our neighbors' homes. The proposed lot split allowing separate dwellings will provide for improved replacement of the building with two separate and more open sites. This would enhance the overall appearance of this extensive view plane. Very truly yours, H. MontgomeWoud /HML 02/19/2004 14:58 FAX 702 362 4348 HUNTINGTON DEVELOPMENT G U002 Feb -19 2034 1 43PM ""' No.3957 P. 2 MEMORANDUM Date: February 17, 2004 'r To; Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Attn; Scott Woodford, Planner From; Gerry Wendel Re: Wagar/Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado I drive by 517 Park Circle two or three tunes a day as I reside at 201 Silverlode Drive, Aspen. I am writing this letter to express my support of the•proposed lot split_ I am of the belief that two single family homes instead of one large duplex w:01 improve the visual impact to the neighborhood. I have also been informed that the planning staff has proposed restricting the available floor area to both properties to that of the original duplex. I believe that this is an inappropriate restriction, as the resulting houses will be too small to provide for a reasonable return on their investment. It is my opinion, as a neighbor, that all properties in this district should be allowed to develop homes of reasonable size, in accordance with the floor area tables appropri a to the zone district. Ge�ry Wendel MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council `/ THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Scott Woodford, City Plannel� RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE, 1sT READING, PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION; ORDINANCE NO. _, SERIES 2004 DATE: March 22, 2004 A view of the existing, fire damaged duplex from Park Circle. The applicants propose to tear down the duplex, subdivide the property into two lots and construct two single - family. residences. The driveway shown will be abandoned and moved to the south for access to one home, while the existing access to the north will remain for access to the other. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 im'N Q 15 REQUEST SUMMARY: PUD Amendment Subdivision and GMQS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot into two single - family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single - family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than required minimum lot sizes and reduced front and north side setbacks. APPLICANT: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates ZONE DISTRICT: R -15, PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums P &Z ACTION: Approval with conditions on 3/2/04 (7 -0 to approve) STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, RECOMMENDATION: .SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTION, WITH CONDITIONS 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 PROJECT SUMMARY: On April 12, 2003, a fire occurred in the duplex at 517 Park Circle, rendering the structure uninhabitable. Instead of re- building the non - conforming duplex (non- conforming due to its floor area) in its original configuration, which would be allowed by the Land Use Code, the applicants wish to use the two development rights on the property from the duplex and subdivide the property into two lots in order to build two single - family residences. The two lots that the applicant proposes to create are 11,237 square feet and 11,428 square feet, which are smaller than what the existing R -15, PUD zoning on the property requires for minimum lot area per dwelling unit (which is 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit). Single - family residences of 4,098 square feet are proposed to be constructed on each lot. The house sizes were arrived at by using the R -15 zone district external floor area ratios and include mandatory reductions in floor area for steep slopes. The steep slopes are entirely located on proposed Lot 2, however, the applicants have agreed to split the allowed floor area in half. Setting the substandard lot size and shifting a portion of the floor area from one lot to another is achieved through the PUD process. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval to establish reduced front setbacks (from 25' to 10') and "north side yard setbacks (from 10' to 5'). Two separate, 12' wide driveways are proposed to access each lot from Park Circle and a 5' wide sidewalk aligned on the back of the curb on Park Circle is also included in the plan. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION' The P &Z voted to approve the application on March 2, 2004 by a vote of 7 -0, however, they chose to modify one key condition of approval. Whereas, the applicant proposed a .36 floor area ratio (FAR) for the new single - family structures to be constructed on the new lots and staff recommended a .26, the P &Z voted to approve a .30 FAR. In making their decision, the P &Z indicated that a compromise between the staff and applicant was appropriate, given the sub - standard lot sizes and the desire to allow the applicants a reasonable floor area allowance (see additional discussion later in the report and the ----- -- attached-I'&Z-minuiesferata�� '-`- �cc�is -vir � APPLICABLE LAND USE SECTIONS: In order to accommodate the above development request, the following land use approvals are required: 1) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: In accordance with Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, a PUD Amendment may be utilized to establish alternative dimensional standards. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing PUD in order to allow the proposed lots to be less than the required 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit and to reduce the front and north side yard setback. Final Review Authority City Council 2) GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS) EXEMPTIONS Per Section 26.470.070(B) of the Code, a GMQS Exemption may be requested for the �) I "/ PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 construction of a "Detached Single - Family or Duplex Dwelling Unit ". The applicant requests this extension for the construction of two single - family dwelling units after demolition of the existing duplex, which is exempt from GMQS, subject to compliance with certain standards (staff review of those standards follows in the report). Final Review Authority Community Development Director. 3) SUBDIVISION: Section 26.480 of the Code pertains to Subdivision and subdivision review is required in this instance for the proposed split of the existing duplex lot into two single - family lots. Final Review Authority: City Council. EXISTING CONDITIONSBACKGROUND INFORMATION: According to City files, the Sunny Park and Sunny Park North Subdivision were annexed into the City in 1966 and zoned later in 1967. Per the City GIS records, the duplex was constructed in 1981. A PUD overlay was established over this property at some point, however, city records do not indicate when this took place or for what reason. The applicants have an easement agreement with Pitkin County, who own the abutting property to the north, to utilize a portion of County property for landscaping and access purposes. At this point, the easement agreement between the applicants and the County will continue with the new subdivision, although the applicant will abandon the driveway access that utilizes County property so the driveway is completely on their property. The duplex is an existing non - conforming structure with respect to allowable floor area. According to the application, the duplex is 5,760 sq. ft. of floor area, whereas the Code allows only 5,380 sq. ft.. As a note, Section 26.312.030 of the Code states that non- conforming structures which are destroyed through "non- purposeful destruction" may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty-four months of the date of demolition. In other words, if the applicants wished to replace the duplex in its existing configuration, the Code would allow them to do so, regardless of its existing non - conforming structure status. 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: According to the Code, among the purposes of the PUD is to encourage flexibility and innovation in development in order to meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and achieve a higher quality, more creative design and site planning. To help accomplish these and other goals, the PUD can be used to adjust the dimensional requirements of an underlying zone district. In this case, the applicant is using the PUD to establish site specific dimensional standards for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and the front and the north side yard setbacks. According to Section 26.445.020 of the Land Use Code, a development application for a PUD may be applied for on parcels over 27,000 square feet for the purposes of residential, commercial, tourist, or other development purposes. An application may be 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 applied for on a lot of less than 27,000 square feet; according to the Code, if the Community Development Director determines that the development of the property may have the ability to further the goals of the AACP and that the provisions of the PUD land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. The subject site is only 22,665 square feet. The Director allowed the applicant to proceed with this application despite the smaller site because of the probability that it could further the goals of the AACP. Staff has analyzed how the application furthers these goals below, along with an explanation of the PUD request and staffs position on the issue (also see Exhibit A for Staff Findings related to the PUD Review Standards): MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the R -15 zone district, the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 15,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting PUD approval to create two smaller lots, with one lot being 11,237 sq. ft. and the other 11,428 sq. ft.). STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT): Staff supports the request to establish smaller than minimum lot sizes because allowing the applicant to go from a duplex to two, single - family residences will further the goals of the AACP and be a benefit to the neighboring properties by breaking up the one large mass of the existing duplex into two smaller masses. As the applicant indicates in their support for the amendment, this change will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and will also help open up view corridors from the public street towards the mountains to the south and southwest. The AACP emphasizes the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the natural beauty and environment of the Aspen area. In addition, the proposed smaller lot sizes are not greatly out of compliance with the lot sizes of the surrounding single - family residences (see Exhibit E for this comparison). Staffs support of the smaller lot sizes through the PUD is, however, conditioned upon limiting the amount of floor area for the two proposed single - family dwelling units to the total amount of square footage in the original duplex. According to the application, the floor area for the existing duplex is 5,760 square feet. Staff recommends that the two - -- sircule= family resi eneessplit- -sctt - footauein a mannerchosen by the annlicants— - Staff proposes that the floor area of the new lots be limited to that of the existing duplex for the following reasons: ■ The limitation would allow the project to better comply with the goals of the AACP. One of those goals, put forth by the applicant, was the enhancement of the neighborhood by splitting up the solid mass of the existing duplex into two, separate masses, thereby improving neighborhood aesthetics and opening up view -planes towards the ski mountain and Shadow Mountain. Staff agrees with this contention, but only if the existing duplex mass were split up between the new homes. If the new homes together are larger than the duplex they replaced (as proposed, the sum of the new single - family residences will be over 2,400 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 square feet more than the existing duplex), then the goal of reducing mass and opening up views has not been achieved. • The floor area tables in each zone district of the Code are weighted towards allowing higher FAR's on smaller lots. So, the applicants proposal to use the R- 15 standards for allowable floor area on the smaller than required lots would result in a higher FAR than could be achieved if the lots actually met the required minimum of 15,000 sq. ft.. For example, on each of the two proposed lots (11,237 and 11,428 sq. ft.), the applicant proposes 4,098 sq. ft. of floor area — arrived at by using the floor area ratios from the R -15 zone district standards - resulting in a.36 FAR. If, however, the lots were to comply with the required minimum lot sizes in the zone district (15,000 sq. ft.), the allowed FAR would be only .30. Per staffs recommendation of limiting the new structures to 2,880 sq. ft., (which equates to half the size of the existing duplex) the resulting FAR would be .25 and .26. At the March 2 "d public hearing, P &Z recommended a .30 FAR (equaling 3,400 sq. ft. of floor area) as a compromise between the applicant's proposal and the staff s recommendation. The chart below further illustrates the different FAR scenarios: I9rlfereof = HE i Lut S4 llawaloo� m sufu}gAiti =; 5cen�rio's Aveai5, Applicants Proposal: 11,237 sq. ft. 11,428 sq. ft. 4,098 sq. ft. 4,098 sq. ft. .36 .36 Compliance with R -15 Minimum 15,000 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. .30 Lot Size: Staff 11,237 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. 26 Recommendation: 11,428 sq. ft. 2,880 s . ft. .25 P &Z 11,237 sq. ft. 3,400 sq. ft. 30 Recommendation: 11,428 s ft. 3,400 sq. ft. • Without the PUD allowing smaller than minimum lot sizes, two single - family structures would not be possible on this parcel. Since staff is recommending that the City relax its standards to allow the two - single family residences (in order to further the goals of the AACP and to provide a community benefit) in place of the duplex (a major benefit to the applicants), staff feels it is appropriate to place reasonable limitations on the size of the new structures to help them better conform to the neighborhood and to preclude a situation where the applicant is further benefiting from the PUD by achieving a higher FAR than would be allowed if the proposed lots complied with the minimum lot size. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE SETBACK REOuIREMENTS: The following table summarizes the setback requirements in the R -15 zone district and the applicant's proposed setbacks for the two new lots: STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F, the median setback of the surrounding properties, while they vary from 0' up to 54', is 9.9'. In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape, rather than being setback 25'. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the existing house to the south. To offset this request for reduced setbacks off the north property line, the applicants have agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15'. versus 10'). 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS): In order to obtain the development rights to build the single - family residences, an exemption to the GMQS is necessary. The following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): DETACHED SINGLE- FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT: According to Section 26.470.070(B), in order to qualify for a single - family exemption, the applicant shall have the followin three 3� options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single - family dwelling unit being constructed. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 qu Front Yard 25' 10' Setback Rear Yard Setback 10' 10' North Side Yard 10' IF 5' Setback South Side Yard 10' 15' Setback STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F, the median setback of the surrounding properties, while they vary from 0' up to 54', is 9.9'. In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape, rather than being setback 25'. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the existing house to the south. To offset this request for reduced setbacks off the north property line, the applicants have agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15'. versus 10'). 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS): In order to obtain the development rights to build the single - family residences, an exemption to the GMQS is necessary. The following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): DETACHED SINGLE- FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT: According to Section 26.470.070(B), in order to qualify for a single - family exemption, the applicant shall have the followin three 3� options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single - family dwelling unit being constructed. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 �v Per staff's recommendation of limiting the size of the two single - family residences, the above requirement is not applicable. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structures compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. Despite this, the applicant still qualifies for the exemption. If Council approves the applicant's proposal to allow the new single family homes to be larger than the floor area of the existing duplex, then the applicant would pay a fee in lieu for the amount of increase in floor area from the duplex to the new structures. 3. SUBDIVISION: Staff has reviewed all of the subdivision criteria in Exhibit C and have found the request to comply with all of the applicable criteria. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS: The DRC meeting was held on December 17, 2003. The comments from that meeting are attached in Exhibit D. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle, with conditions as put forth in the attached ordinance. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. , Series of 2004, for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle" ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings - Planned Unit Development Standards Exhibit B: Staff Findings - GMQS Exemption Exhibit C: Staff Findings — Subdivision Exhibit D: Referral (DRC) Comments - Exhibit F: Setback Analysis Exhibit G: P &Z Minutes Exhibit H: Application 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 7 ORDINANCE N0. _, (SERIES OF 2004) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 517 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH AND SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737 - 074 -01- 016/017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rich Wagar; Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single - family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single - family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen. Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.570 of the Land Use Code, GMQS Exemption approval may be granted by the Community Development Director; however, 8 - according to Section 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code the applicant has agreed to combine this administrative review with the other land use approvals sought; and, WHEREAS, the PUD Amendment and Subdivision review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and continued the public hearing to March 2, 2004 where, by a seven to zero (7 -0) vote, recommended City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council reviewed and considered the development proposal at a regular City Council meeting on April 26, 2004 and, by a vote of to (_ - _), approved this Ordinance (on Second Reading) for a PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1• — --4he- approval- i�subjeet- to- the-fell©wing- con�itiens: - - -- -- 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or both of the proposed single - family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single - family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 9- e. An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right -of -way, including the landscape berms. f. The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located in the city right -of -way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees, impacts fees; and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, of the proposed single - family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 square feet each, which is roughly the result of a floor area ratio of 30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single - family residence on the newly created lots, the applicants shall construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk, in compliance with City of Aspen standards, along Park Circle for the portion of the subject property that fronts Park Circle. Section 2• 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. 10- �e Section 3• 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 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on this 22nd day of March, 2004. ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor FINALLY, ADOPTED, PASSED, AND APPROVED this 26h day of April, 2004. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcestor, City Attorney Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor •—" .-. EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS: PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential'. Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area," which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single - family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single - family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The applicant is requesting exemption from the GMQS for construction of two detached single - family dwelling unit. -12- B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Lot 1 ......................... Lot2 ......................... 15,000 ............... 11,237 15,000 ............... 11,428 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lot 1 ......................... 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2 ......................... 15,000............... 11,428 Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 1 75 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 125 feet 1 10 feet Minimum North Side Yard Setback 110 feet 1 5 feet Minimum South Side Yard Setback 110 feet 1 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 110 feet 110 feet Maximum Height 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance b/w Buildings on 10 feet 10 feet the Lot 4,080 sq. ft., plus 7 sq. ft. /each add'1. Allowable Floor Area (FAR) 100 sq. ft. in lot area 2,880 square feet per up to max. of 4,500 residences sq. ft. (minus slope Minimum Off Street Parking 12 spaces /unit 12 spaces /unit 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. uts rAO b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Generally, staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards (specifically with regard to the smaller than minimum lot sizes) are appropriate for the site for the above characteristics and the proposed lot sizes are in general conformance with surrounding properties. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. With the exception of the smaller than minimum lot sizes, the proposal complies with all of the required dimensional standards for the R -15 zone district. With respect to the lot sizes, staff has conditioned the approval to limit the size of the two single - family residences to the total size of the existing duplex. With this limit, staff feels that an appropriate scale, mass, site coverage and open space for the neighborhood will result. The appropriate number of off -street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non - residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive technioues in the DroDosed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The applicant proposes to comply with the parking requirement in the Code for residential uses, which is 2 spaces per unit. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. 14- b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES rr COMPLY? I N/A Adequate public facilities are either already in place or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense in order to meet the expected demand. No reductions in density, therefore, are required. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or aval anche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A There exists no natural hazards or critical site features as the site has already been developed. No reductions in density, therefore, are required. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The applicant does not propose an increase in the amount of allowed density. -15- `° C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A There are no existing natural or man-made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES In this instance, it is an advantage to the neighborhood and community to have the structures separated to open up vistas and open space which are currently being negatively impacted by the existing duplex. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed lot layout improves the orientation to the public street over the existing situation. The current duplex is not parallel with the street. The new lots will allow the new structures to be parallel with the street, which would comply with the requirement of the Residential Design Standards of having structures properly oriented to the street. With the addition of sidewalks along the front of the lots, the new lots will provide increased visual interest and engagement to pedestrian and motorists. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES Both structures will be able to be served by emergency and service vehicles directly from the public street. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES -16- A sidewalk along the Park Circle will be constructed. The individual structures will be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to handicap access. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Each structure constructed on the newly created lots will be required to comply with all Building Departments requirements related to site drainage. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no non - residential uses proposed. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES According to the application, some of the existing vegetation will need to be moved around on the site to accommodate the new configuration guration and tTie new s� e8 wal cT —' "- There exists n� "significant" natural or man-made features requiring preservation. Some landscaping along the edge of the property fronting Park Circle is proposed to help provide some screening and Drivacv to the structures. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan 17- an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: L Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less- intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The application doesn't include any specific building plans for the two proposed single- family residences as they haven't been designed yet. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Standards. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? _ I YES No lighting plan was submitted with this application as the proposed structures have not yet been designed. At time of building „permit, the City will review the plans to ensure they comply with the lighting ordinance. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. - g- 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner.. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The applicant is not proposing any common park, open space or recreational area H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES According to the applicant and the per the review of the Development Review Committee (DRC) adequate utilities and public facilities exist to serve the proposed development. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and — .---- `----- - -__.- =e -ational- trail - facilities -and mini **sizes- the- Ise_nfsecurit�L-gates The -pmpl asecL_- - - - - -- access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, Or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING' I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Both of the proposed single- family structures will have adequate driveway access off of Park Circle. The City Engineer has requested that the applicant maintain adequate site distance at the point where the driveways to this project intersect with Park Circle, which may include pruning or moving existing landscaping. In addition, sidewalks along the Park Circle in front of the property will be installed by the applicant, thereby improving pedestrian access and safety in an area of the street that is narrow and on a curve. 10M w , The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES The two access points to the individual lots should not create any traffic congestion due to their low density and to the limited number of trips in and out of the site that are created by the average single- family house. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Criteria #3, #4, and #5 are not applicable in this case. Regarding criteria #4, the applicant is proposing to install a sidewalk along Park Circle for the portion that fronts the property. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD — de- velopmenLplan .she_phasingplau.shdLcomply with the following _ - - - -- - -- -- - -- 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I NOT APPLICABLE No phasing of construction is anticipated at this time. r EXHIBIT B STAFF FINDINGS: GMQS EXEMPTION Section 26.470.070 of the Land Use Code applies in this situation, as described below. B. Detached single-family or duplex dwelling unit. The following shall be exempt from the growth management scoring and competition procedures: 1) the construction of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling on a lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section 26.480.020(E), or 2) the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling, or 3) the remodel or expansion of a single - family dwelling into a duplex dwelling. This exemption shall not be applied to any lot for which any other development allotment is currently being sought or is approved. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall be granted only if the following standards are met. 1. Single- family. In order to qualify for a single - family exemption, the applicant shall have three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single- family dwelling unit being constructed. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES _ detached residential units or a duplex dwelling ", is applicable in this case and provides the exemption the applicant requests. As the Community Development Department is stipulating that the floor area of the proposed single- family residences to be constructed on the newly created lots be limited to the amount of floor area of the existing duplex, there are no requirements for providing and ADU or paying the fee in lieu in order to qualify for the GMQS Exemption. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net' increase in FAR of the new structure compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. -21- EXHIBIT C STAFF FINDINGS: SUBDIVISION The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential'. Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area, " which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single - family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single - family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. -22- STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES All applicable requirements, including with the zoning requirements of the R -15 zone district are being met with the exception of the minimum lot sizes, which are being established through the PUD process. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Although the site does contain some areas of steep slope, the property has already been developed with the existing duplex without any problems from natural hazards, so staff is confident that the site is suitable for development. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes that the subdivision has been designed to avoid all of the above spatial patterns. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be vaned by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the --- .------- _- ---- - --. -- subdivision- designsta„dards wouhiiesukin_incompatibility with tjle_Aspen Area - - - - -- Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. -23- 1� NO D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The standards of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, are not applicable because there is no replacement housing involved. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in -lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in -lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A - Even though a new subdivision is being created, no additional residential units are being created above and beyond what exists on the site now. The purpose of the school land dedication fees is to ensure that the current level of service is maintained as development occurs and school enrollment grows. As there is not net new growth occurring with this proposal, staff would interpret the requirement to not be applicable in this instance. 24- EXHIBIT D DRC MINUTES MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: December 17, 200' 12/17/03 DRC Minutes: 517 Park Circle — PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GM QS Attendees: Scott Woodford, Case Planner - Community Development Department Nick Adeh, Engineering Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Phil Overeynder, Water Department Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District Brian Flynn, Parks Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Denis Murray, Building Department - Janette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Tim Ware, Parking Stan Clauson, representative for applicant meeting,-ihe- Development - Review _Cornuaittee- rEViewed�he_ -- -- following project: 517 Park Circle — PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMQS: As proposed, the burnt duplex on Park Circle will be replaced with two single - family residences. The lots are undersized for zone district. DRC COMMENTS Zonine: • 517 Park Circle is located in the R -15 PUD zone district that has the following dimensional requirements: -25- Setbacks: Front Yard - 25 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Rear Yard - 10 feet Height - 25 feet The application packet has several errors as it relates to the dimensional requirements on Attachment B— Dimensional Requirements Form. The height limit for the R -15 zone district is 25 feet, not 28 feet. Furthermore, there are not combined front and rear or side setback requirements for the R -15 zone district. Also, Attachment E contains two proposed building envelopes with no explanation as to which one the applicant is proposing. Finally, the terminology in the application should be "setback" and not "building envelope" as building envelopes are more restrictive and typically not applied to areas in the City except Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the gross lot area is 22,665 square feet. After the exclusion of areas with a slope greater than 20% the lot area is represented to be 19,166. There is no supporting documentation regarding the lot area after slope reduction. Further, the existing allowable and proposed FARs do not take into account slope reduction on the site. Allowable and proposed floor area as well as lot area calculations will be verified when working drawings are submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. • Park Fee - The applicant will be required to pay a Park Dedication Impact Fee for any additional bedrooms that are added. • Residential Design Standards - Both houses will be required to comply with Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. • Lighting Plan - Exterior lighting is required to meet Section 26.575.150 of the -` -- - -man se o e.- Pei- MatSWfiontTeapplicanfi sfequiredfoubm itaItghtTng-- - - - - -� -- plan with the PUD review. Staff feels a lighting plan, with cut sheets, can be submitted at the time of building permit submittal. Engineering: • Encroachment - An encroachment license is needed for all improvements in the ROW including the berms. • Site Distance - The building permit application must demonstrate that the berms do not obstruct the site distance for cars leaving the driveway. • Driveway - Per the City code, driveways need to be setback 10 feet from the property line. As shown, the driveway is along the property line. 26- Water Dent: Abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. Parks Dent: As part of the building permit, the Parks Dept needs to review the ROW landscaping and irrigation system. Fire Dent: If the proposed structures have a floor area greater than 5000 sf, sprinkler systems will be needed. Sanitation District: (i) The existing 6" tap can be used to serve both proposed dwellings but a shared service agreement will be needed. (ii) Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase /DRC /517ParkCircle -27- �g f i Wig 0 501 Park Circle 15,336 sq. ft. lot 2,699 sq. ft. home EXEMT-E LOT SIZE ANALYSIS i Subject Site 11,237 sq. ft. lot 11,428 sq. ft. lot _ 4,200 approx. homes^ - / F ark 0 P Circle ,271 sq. ft. lot 73 sq. ft. home 200 Park Circle 15,856 sq. ft. lot /> 274 sq. ft. home 190 Pazk Circle 18,259 sq. fr. ]ot � 3,004 sq. fr. home UR 91 s at .M i >> A 4 February 2004 Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen, 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback Variance Dear Scott: STAN CLAUSON , EXHIBIT F SETBACK ANALYSIS Planning • Urban Landscape Architecture Iransportation Studies _ Project Management - -- 200 EAST MA 5'ratiEr Asre ' Cotomoo 81611 TE HONE: 970.925.2323 FAX: 970.920.1628 E -MAll_: clauson @scaplanning.com Wn w scaplanning -com Attached are copies of a setback analysis we have prepared in support of this variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. As you can see from the analysis, there is little uniformity in the front setbacks. These vary from zero to almost fifty -five feet. However, a good number of these are less than ten feet, and the median setback of the nine setbacks. measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10 -foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the front will enhance the public areas and open space of the tennis and club facilities to the rear of the parcel. -In the case of Lot 2, the proposed 10 -foot set back allows the siting of the principal mass of the building on the plane of the street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area of the site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site - specific qualities of the proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate to contact meyon.havP Ve truly yours, Stan Cla on, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC EncL Cc: Applicants PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS ASPEN PLANNING & �50NING COMMISSION Minur w MARCH 02 2004 Jasmine Tygre opened the regular meeting of the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission at 4:30 pm in the Sister Cities Meeting Room. P &Z members present were Jack Johnson, Steve Skadron, Dylan Johns, Roger Haneman, John Rowland, and Jasmine Tygre. Ruth Kruger arrived at 4:45 pm. Staff present were David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney; Joyce Allgaier, Scott Woodford, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Jack Johnson asked fora legal definition of "actual use ". Johnson recalled from the Park Place review the zoning was office and the actual use did not figure into the equation or determination regarding the parking garage. Johnson continued that during the Maroon Creek Club review the issue was that they were nominally lodge rooms but not actually being used as such and that was somehow determined on changing them to multi - family. Johnson wanted an understanding of what "actual use" means or was it nebulous. David Hoefer responded that it wasn't considered nebulous; he suggested discussing it with Joyce and then come back to the commission. MINUTES MOTION: Jack Johnson moved to approve the minutes from January 13, February 3 and 4, 2004; seconded by Roger Haneman. APPROVED 6 -0. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Jack Johnson, John Rowland and Ruth Kruger had conflicts with the Lodge. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/17/04): WAGAR PUD AMENDMENT — 517 Park Circle amendment; public notice was received on February 17". Scott Woodford stated the application was for a PUD amendment and GMQS Exemption to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots (11,237 and 11,428 square feet) in the R -15 zone district. The PUD was to establish smaller lot sizes and smaller front yard (from 25 to 10 feet) and side yard (from 10 to 5 feet) setbacks, which would be more in compliance with the neighborhood; there was no neighbor to impact. Woodford stated that the new single - family homes be limited to the square footage of the duplex at 5700 square feet split between the 2 single - family homes. The applicant proposed the FAR be allowed for the lot sizes in the zone district (page 5 of the memo a chart showed the comparisons. The applicant proposed one lot at 11,237 square feet with a residence at 4,236 square feet and the other lot at 1 1,428 square feet with a 4,249 square foot house. The R -15 zone district allowed 15,000 1 square foot lot with a FAR of 4,500 square feet. The staff recommendation was one lot at 11,237 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR and the other at 11,4 =28 square feet with 2,880 square feet of FAR.) Woodford stated that if P &Z approved the staff recommendation then the applicant would not have to pay an additional fee -in -lieu for any additional amount of square footage. Woodford noted that there was a condition in the resolution addressing this issue. Stan Clauson, planner for applicant, introduced the property owners Deborah Burek and Rich Wagar. Clauson noted that Mr. Wagar had an easement from the county for the parcel of land next door for his driveway. Clauson explained that there was currently no sidewalk and visibility was poor on Park Circle for pedestrians walking on the roadway; as part of this proposal curbs and sidewalks would be installed along Park Circle, which would enhance the pedestrian environment. Clauson said they found nothing in the comp plan that recommended that the floor be less than the floor area allowed in the R -15 zone district; they relied on the chart for a reasonable floor area with a slope analysis reduction calculation. Clauson provided maps, elevations and drawings. Clauson explained the need for the square footage. Rich Wagar supplied 3 letters. Deborah Burek stated that they wanted to enhance the area Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single - family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single - family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks; and, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the PUD - -- – Airtendment Subdi� isior and- GMQS- €xemption- for - the prope#y at 5�� P -ark Circl€; -subjesr to — ..- - -- - -- the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1: The approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or both of the proposed single - family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single - family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. ASPEN PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION MinutwWMARCH 02 2004 e. An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right -of -way, including the landscape berms. f The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located in the city right -of -way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area, as defined in Section 26.575.020 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code, ofthe proposed single - family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 3,400 square feet each, which is roughly the result of a floor area ratio of .30 on the proposed lots. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either new single - family residence on the newly created lots, the applicants shall construct a five (5) foot wide sidewalk, in compliance with City of Aspen standards, along Park Circle for the portion of the subject property that fronts Park Circle. comply We, , '1 -0 � �V fat CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING (02/03/04): LODGE AT ASPEN CONCEPTUAL PUD Jasmine Tygre opened the continued public hearing for Adjourned 7pm. Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Em MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen PI . 9 & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaiez:, Deputy Director of Community Development FROM: Scott Woodford, City Planner RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE, PUBLIC HEARING, PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION; RESOLUTION NO. r�' , SERIES 2004 DATE: February 17, 20011 A view of the existing, fire damaged duplex from Park Circle. The applicants propose to tear down the duplex, subdivide the property into two lots and construct two single - family residences. The driveway shown will be abandoned and moved to the south for access to one home, while the existing access to the north will remain for access to the other. PROJECT: 517 PARK CIRCLE REQUEST SUMMARY: Approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUD), Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot into two single - family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single- family residences. The PUD Amendment is to smaller than required minimum lot sizes and reduced front requested allow and north side setbacks. APPLICANT: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates ZONE DISTRICT: R- 15,PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, RECOMMENDATION: SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTION, WITH CONDITIONS 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 I 1.-. J PROJECT SUMMARY: On April 12, 2003, a fire occurred in the duplex at 517 Park Circle, rendering the structure uninhabitable. Instead of re- building the non - conforming duplex (non- conforming due to its floor area) in its original configuration, which would be allowed by the Land Use Code, the applicants wish to use the two development rights on the property from the duplex and subdivide the property into two lots in order to build two single - family residences. The two lots that the applicant proposes to create are 11,237 square feet and 11,428 square feet, which are smaller than what the existing R -15, PUD zoning on the property requires for minimum lot area per dwelling unit (which is 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit). In addition, the applicant is requesting approval to establish reduced the required front setback (from 25' to 10') and north side yard setback (from 10' to 5'). According to the application, the two single - family residences proposed to be built would be sized in accordance with the R -15 zone district standards for floor area, with slope reduction taken into account. Two separate, 12' wide driveways are proposed to access each lot from Park Circle and a 5' wide sidewalk aligned on the back of the curb on Park Circle is also included in the plan. APPLICABLE LAND USE SECTIONS: In order to accommodate the above development request, the following land use approvals are required: 1) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: In accordance with Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, a PUD Amendment may be utilized to establish alternative dimensional standards. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing PUD in order to allow the proposed lots to be less than the required 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit and to reduce the front and north side yard setback. Final Review Authority: City Council. 2) GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS) EXEMPTIONS: Per Section 26.470.070(B) of the Code, a GMQS Exemption may be requested for the construction of a "Detached Single- Family or Duplex Dwelling Unit ". The applicant requests this extension for the construction of two single- family dwelling units after demolition of the existing duplex, which is exempt from GMQS, subject to compliance with certain standards (staff review of those standards follows in the report). Final Review Authority: Community Development Director. 3) SUBDIVISION: Section 26.480 of the Code pertains to Subdivision and subdivision review is required in this instance for the proposed split of the existing duplex lot into two single - family lots. Final Review Authority: City Council. 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS /BACKGROUND INFORMATION: According to City files, the Sunny Park and Sunny Park North Subdivision were annexed into the City in 1966 and zoned later in 1967. Per the City GIS records, the duplex was constructed in 1981. A PUD overlay was established over this property at some point, however, city records do not indicate when this took place or for what reason. The applicants have an easement agreement with Pitkin County, who own the abutting property to the north, to utilize a portion of County property for landscaping and access purposes. At this point, the easement agreement between the applicants and the County will continue with the new subdivision, although the applicant will abandon the driveway access that utilizes County property so the driveway is completely on their property. The duplex is an existing non - conforming structure with respect to allowable floor area. According to the application, the duplex is 5,760 sq. ft. of floor area, whereas the Code allows only 5,380 sq. ft.. As a note, Section 26.312.030 of the Code states that non- conforming structures which are destroyed through "non - purposeful destruction" may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty -four months of the date of demolition. In other words, if the applicants wished to replace the duplex in its existing configuration, the Code would allow them to do so, regardless of its existing non - conforming structure status. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUDI AMENDMENT: According to the Code, among the purposes of the PUD is to encourage flexibility and innovation in development in order to meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and achieve a higher quality, more creative design and site planning. To help accomplish these and other goals, the PUD can be used to adjust the dimensional requirements of an underlying zone district. In this case, the applicant is using the PUD to establish site specific dimensional standards for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and the front and the north side yard setbacks. According to Section 26.445.020 of the Land Use Code, a development application for a PUD may be applied for on parcels over 27,000 square feet for the purposes of residential, commercial, tourist, or other development purposes. An application may be applied for on a lot of less than 27,000 square feet, according to the Code, if the Community Development Director determines that the development of the property may have the ability to further the goals of the AACP and that the provisions of the PUD land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. The subject site is only 22,665 square feet. The Director allowed the applicant to proceed with this application despite the smaller site because of the probability that it could further the goals of the AACP. Staff has analyzed how the application furthers these goals below, along with an explanation of the PUD request and staff's position on the issue (also see Exhibit A for Staff Findings related to the PUD Review Standards): 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 a MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the R -15 zone district, the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 15,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting PUD approval to create two lots, with one lot being 11,237 sq. ft. and the other 11,428 sq. ft.) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: The following table summarizes the setback requirements in the R -15 zone district and the applicant's proposed setbacks for the two new lots: STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT): Staff supports the request to establish smaller than minimum lot sizes because allowing the applicant to go from a duplex to two, single- family residences will further the goals of the AACP and be a benefit to the neighboring properties by breaking up the one large mass of the existing duplex into two smaller masses. As the applicant indicates in their support for the amendment, this change will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and will also help open up view corridors from the public street towards the mountains to the south and southwest. The AACP emphasizes the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the natural beauty and environment of the Aspen area. In addition, the proposed smaller lot sizes are not greatly out of compliance with the lot sizes of the surrounding single - family residences (see Exhibit E for this comparison) Staff's support of the smaller lot sizes through the PUD is, however, conditioned upon limiting the amount of floor area for the two proposed single- family dwelling units to the total amount of square footage in the original duplex. According to the application, the floor area for the existing duplex is 5,760 square feet. Staff recommends that the two single - family residences split this square footage in a manner chosen by the applicants. Staff proposes that the floor area of the new lots be limited to that of the existing duplex for the following reasons: • The limitation allows the application to better comply with the goals of the AACP. One of those goals, which was put forth by the applicant, was the enhancement of the neighborhood by splitting up the solid mass of the existing duplex into two, separate masses, thereby improving neighborhood aesthetics and opening up view -planes towards the ski mountain and Shadow Mountain. Staff agrees with this contention, but only if the existing duplex mass were split up 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 R -15 Require Proposed: Front Yard Setback 25' 10' Rear Yard Setback 10' 10' North Side Yard Setback 10" 5' South Side Yard Setback 10' 15' STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT): Staff supports the request to establish smaller than minimum lot sizes because allowing the applicant to go from a duplex to two, single- family residences will further the goals of the AACP and be a benefit to the neighboring properties by breaking up the one large mass of the existing duplex into two smaller masses. As the applicant indicates in their support for the amendment, this change will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and will also help open up view corridors from the public street towards the mountains to the south and southwest. The AACP emphasizes the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the natural beauty and environment of the Aspen area. In addition, the proposed smaller lot sizes are not greatly out of compliance with the lot sizes of the surrounding single - family residences (see Exhibit E for this comparison) Staff's support of the smaller lot sizes through the PUD is, however, conditioned upon limiting the amount of floor area for the two proposed single- family dwelling units to the total amount of square footage in the original duplex. According to the application, the floor area for the existing duplex is 5,760 square feet. Staff recommends that the two single - family residences split this square footage in a manner chosen by the applicants. Staff proposes that the floor area of the new lots be limited to that of the existing duplex for the following reasons: • The limitation allows the application to better comply with the goals of the AACP. One of those goals, which was put forth by the applicant, was the enhancement of the neighborhood by splitting up the solid mass of the existing duplex into two, separate masses, thereby improving neighborhood aesthetics and opening up view -planes towards the ski mountain and Shadow Mountain. Staff agrees with this contention, but only if the existing duplex mass were split up 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 4 between the new homes. If the new homes together are larger than the duplex they replaced, then the goal of reducing mass and opening up views has not been achieved. ■ The floor area tables in each zone district of the Code are weighted towards allowing higher FAR's on smaller lots. The applicants proposal to use the R -15 standards for allowable floor area on the smaller sized lots would result in a higher FAR than what would be achieved if the lots were the required minimum of 15,000 sq. ft.. For example, on the proposed 11,237 sq. ft. lot, 4,236 sq. ft. of floor area would be allowed in the R -15 zone district, which results in a .37 FAR. If the lot were to instead meet the minimum lot size in the zone district (15,000 sq. ft.) and the structure were to be limited to 2,880 sq. ft., in accordance with the staff recommendation (half the size of the existing duplex) the resulting FAR would be .30. The chart below illustrates these scenarios: Different Scenarios: Lot Size: Allowable Floor Area in R -15 Resulting FAR: Applicants Proposal: 11,237 sq. ft. 11,428 sq. ft. 4,236 sq. ft. 4,249 sq. ft. 38 .37 Compliance with R -15 Minimum 15,000 sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. .30 Lot Size: Staff Recommendation: 11,237 sq. ft. 11,428 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. 2,880 so- ft. .26 25 • Without the PUD allowing smaller than minimum lot sizes, two single - family structures would not be allowed on this parcel. Since staff is recommending that the City relax its standards to allow the two- single family residences, staff feels it is appropriate to place reasonable limitations on the size of the new structures to help them better conform to the neighborhood. STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS): Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F, the median setback of the surrounding properties, while they vary from 0' up to 54', is 9.9'. In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape, rather than being setback. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the apartment complex to the south. The applicant has agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15' versus 10') in exchange for the reduced setbacks on the north. 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMQS): In order to obtain the development rights to build the single - family residences, an exemption to the GMQS is necessary. The following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 DETACHED SINGLE - FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT: According to Section 26.470.070(B), in order to qualify for a single - family exemption, the applicant shall have the following three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single - family dwelling unit being constructed. Per staff's recommendation of limiting the size of the two single - family residences, the above requirement is not applicable. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structures compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. Despite this, the applicant still qualifies for the exemption. If P &Z approves the applicant's proposal to allow the new single family homes to be larger than the floor area of the existing duplex, then the applicant would pay a fee in lieu for the amount of increase in floor area from the duplex to the new structures. 3. SUBDIVISION: Staff has reviewed all of the subdivision criteria in Exhibit C and have found the request to comply with all of the applicable criteria. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS: The DRC meeting was held on December 17, 2003. The comments from that meeting are attached in Exhibit D. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle, with conditions as put forth in the attached resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2004, for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle" ATTACHMENTS: . Exhibit A: Staff Findings - Planned Unit Development Standards Exhibit B: Staff Findings - GMQS Exemption Exhibit C: Staff Findings — Subdivision Exhibit D: Referral (DRC) Comments Exhibit E: Lot Size Analysis Exhibit F: Setback Analysis Exhibit G: Application 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 RESOLUTION N0. � , (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 517 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH AND SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-074-01-0161017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clausen Associates, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single - family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single - family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.570 of the Land Use Code, GMQS Exemption approval may be granted by the Community Development Director; however, -7- according to Section 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code the applicant has agreed to combine this administrative review with the other land use approvals sought; and, WHEREAS, the PUD Amendment and Subdivision review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where, by a to (_-_) vote, recommended City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for the property at 517 Park Circle, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1• The approval is subject to the following conditions: Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or both of the proposed single - family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single - family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. e. An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right -of -way, including the landscape berms. f. The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located in the city right -of -way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. s- 2. A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. 3. The floor area of the proposed single - family residences on the new lots shall be limited to 5,770 sq. ft., which is the amount of floor area of the existing duplex. A note indicating this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. 4. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. Section 2: This Resolution 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 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution 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. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on February 17, 2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: David Hoefer, Asst. City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair M EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS: PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential'. Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area," which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single- family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single- family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The applicant is requesting exemption from the GMQS for construction of two detached single - family dwelling unit. -lo- B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) Minimum Lot Size (square feet) 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance b/w Buildings on Lot 1 ......................... 15,000............... the Lot 11,237 Lot 2 ......................... 15,000............... No Requirement 11,428 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit 4,080 sq. ft., plus 7 Lot 1 ......................... 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2 ......................... 15,000............... up to max. of 4,500 11,428 Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 75 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback Minimum North Side Yard Setback Minimum South Side Yard Setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback 25 feet 110 feet 10 feet 1 5 feet 10 feet 1 15 feet 10 feet 110 feet Maximum Height 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance b/w Buildings on 10 feet 10 feet the Lot Minimum Percent of Open Space No Requirement No Requirement 4,080 sq. ft., plus 7 sq. ft. /each add'I. 100 sq. ft. in lot area 2,880 square feet per Allowable Floor Area (FAR) up to max. of 4,500 residences sq. ft. (minus slope Minimum Off Street Parking 2 spaces /unit 12 spaces /unit 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man-made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Generally, staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards (specifically with regard to the smaller than minimum lot sizes) are appropriate for the site for the above characteristics and the proposed lot sizes are in general conformance with surrounding properties. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES With the exception of the smaller than minimum lot sizes, the proposal complies with all of the required dimensional standards for the R -15 zone district. With respect to the lot sizes, staff has conditioned the approval to limit the size of the two single - family residences to the total size of the existing duplex. With this limit, staff feels that an appropriate scale, mass, site coverage and open space for the neighborhood will result. 3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non - residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant proposes to comply with the parking requirement in the Code for residential uses, which is 2 spaces per unit. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: -12- a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A Adequate public facilities are either already in place or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense in order to meet the expected demand. No reductions in density, therefore, are required. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There exists no natural hazards or critical site features as the site has already been developed. No reductions in density, therefore are required. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if.. a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. 13- STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The applicant does not propose an increase in the amount of allowed density. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A There are no existing natural or man -made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES In this instance, it is an advantage to the neighborhood and community to have the structures separated to open up vistas and open space which are currently being negatively impacted by the existing duplex. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed lot layout improves the orientation to the public street over the existing situation. The current duplex is not parallel with the street. The new lots will allow the new structures to be parallel with the street, which would comply with the requirement of the Residential Design Standards of having structures properly oriented to the street. With the addition of sidewalks along the front of the lots, the new lots will provide increased visual interest and engagement to pedestrian and motorists. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? YES Both structures will be able to be served by emergency and service vehicles directly from the public street. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. 14- STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES A sidewalk along the Park Circle will be constructed. The individual structures will be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to handicap access. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Each structure constructed on the newly created lots will be required to comply with all Building Departments requirements related to site drainage. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A There are no non- residential uses proposed. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES According to the application, some of the existing vegetation will need to be moved around on the site to accommodate the new configuration and the new sidewalk. There exists no "significant" natural or man -made features requiring preservation. Some landscaping along the edge of the property fronting Park Circle is proposed to help provide some screening and privacy to the structures. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan 15 - an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: I . Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative of, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less - intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The application doesn't include any specific building plans for the two proposed single - family residences as they haven't been designed yet. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Standards. F. Li_ hg ting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES No lighting plan was submitted with this application as the proposed structures have not yet been designed. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure they comply with the lighting ordinance. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. -16- 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreational area. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES According to the applicant and the per the review of the Development Review Committee (DRC) adequate utilities and public facilities exist to serve the proposed development. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Both of the proposed single- family structures will have adequate driveway access off of Park Circle. The City Engineer has requested that the applicant maintain adequate site distance at the point where the driveways to this project intersect with Park Circle, which may include pruning or moving existing landscaping. In addition, sidewalks along the Park Circle in front of the property will be installed by the applicant, thereby improving pedestrian access and safety in an area of the street that is narrow and on a curve. - 17- 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES The two access points to the individual lots should not create any traffic congestion due to their low density and to the limited number of trips in and out of the site that are created by the average single - family house 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Criteria #3, 44, and #5 are not applicable in this case. Regarding criteria #4, the applicant is proposing to install a sidewalk along Park Circle for the portion that fronts the property. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE No phasing of construction is anticipated at this time is- EXHIBIT B STAFF FINDINGS: GMQS EXEMPTION Section 26.470.070 of the Land Use Code applies in this situation, as described below. B. Detached single-family or duplex dwelling unit. The following shall be exempt from the growth management scoring and competition procedures: 1) the construction of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling on a lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section 26.480.020(E), or 2) the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling, or 3) the remodel or expansion of a single - family dwelling into a duplex dwelling. This exemption shall not be applied to any lot for which any other development allotment is currently being sought or is approved. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall be granted only if the following standards are met. 1. Single- family. In order to qualify for a single - family exemption, the applicant shall have three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single- family dwelling unit being constructed. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The portion of the section above related to "the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling ", is applicable in this case and provides the exemption the applicant requests. As the Community Development Department is stipulating that the floor area of the proposed single - family residences to be constructed on the newly created lots be limited to the amount of floor area of the existing duplex, there are no requirements for providing and ADU or paying the fee in lieu in order to qualify for the GMQS Exemption. Per the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structure compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR no mitigation is required in this case. -19- EXHIBIT C STAFF FINDINGS: SUBDIVISION The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential ". Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area, " which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. DOS IT CO YES STAFF FINDING' The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single - family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single- family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. 20- STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES All applicable requirements, including with the zoning requirements of the R -15 zone district are being met with the exception of the minimum lot sizes, which are being established through the PUD process B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING' DOES 1T CO_MPLY? YES Although the site does contain some areas of steep slope, the property has already been developed with the existing duplex without any problems from natural hazards, so staff is confident that the site is suitable for development b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? YES Staff believes that the subdivision has been designed to avoid all of the above spatial patterns C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and /or the goals of the community. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. _Z - D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. STAFF FINDING' DOES IT COMPLY? N/A The standards of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, are not applicable because there is no replacement housing involved. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in -lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in -lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. STAFF FINDING' I DOES IT COMPLY? N/A Even though a new subdivision is being created, no additional residential units are being created above and beyond what exists on the site now. The purpose of the school land dedication fees is to ensure that the current level of service is maintained as development occurs and school enrollment grows. As there is not net new growth occurring with this proposal staff would interpret the requirement to not be applicable in this instance. 22- ,., w.r EXHIBIT D DRC MINUTES MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: December 17, 2003 Re: 12/17/03 DRC Minutes: 517 Park Circle — PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GM QS Attendees: Scott Woodford, Case Planner - Community Development Department Nick Adeh, Engineering Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Phil Overeynder, Water Department Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District Brian Flynn, Parks Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Denis Murray, Building Department Janette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Tim Ware, Parking Stan Clauson, representative for applicant At the December 17, 2003 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project: 517 Park Circle — PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS: As proposed, the burnt duplex on Park Circle will be replaced with two single - family residences. The lots are undersized for zone district. DRC COMMENTS Zonin : • 517 Park Circle is located in the R -15 PUD zone district that has the following dimensional requirements: 23 - Setbacks: Front Yard - 25 feet Side Yard - 10 feet Rear Yard - 10 feet Height - 25 feet The application packet has several errors as it relates to the dimensional requirements on Attachment B— Dimensional Requirements Form. The height limit for the R -15 zone district is 25 feet, not 28 feet. Furthermore, there are not combined front and rear or side setback requirements for the R -15 zone district. Also, Attachment E contains two proposed building envelopes with no explanation as to which one the applicant is proposing. Finally, the terminology in the application should be "setback" and not "building envelope" as building envelopes are more restrictive and typically not applied to areas in the City except Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the gross lot area is 22,665 square feet. After the exclusion of areas with a slope greater than 20% the lot area is represented to be 19,166. There is no supporting documentation regarding the lot area after slope reduction. Further, the existing allowable and proposed FARs do not take into account slope reduction on the site. Allowable and proposed floor area as well as lot area calculations will be verified when working drawings are submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. Park Fee – The applicant will be required to pay a Park Dedication Impact Fee for any additional bedrooms that are added. Residential Design Standards - Both houses will be required to comply with Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. Lighting Plan - Exterior lighting is required to meet Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code. Per that Section the applicant is required to submit a lighting plan with the PUD review. Staff feels a lighting plan, with cut sheets, can be submitted at the time of building permit submittal. Engineering: • Encroachment – An encroachment license is needed for all improvements in the ROW including the berms. • Site Distance – The building permit application must demonstrate that the berms do not obstruct the site distance for cars leaving the driveway. • Driveway - Per the City code, driveways need to be setback 10 feet from the property line. As shown, the driveway is along the property line. 24- Water Dept: Abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. Parks Dept: As part of the building permit, the Parks Dept needs to review the ROW landscaping and irrigation system. Fire Dept: If the proposed structures have a floor area greater than 5000 sf, sprinkler systems will be needed. Sanitation District: (i) The existing 6" tap can be used to serve both proposed dwellings but a shared service agreement will be needed. (ii) Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase /DRC /517ParkCircle -z5- ` ty WHIP At 4 Subject Site 11,237 sq. ft. lot 11,428 sq. ft. lot \, 4,200 approx. homes EXHIBIT E LOT SIZE ANALYSIS r 200 Park Circle 15,271 sq. ft. lot 3,373 sq. ft. home it 190 Park Circle 18,259 sq. ft. lot 3,004 sq. ft. home STAN CIAUSON, EXHIBIT F SETBACK ANALYSIS Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback Variance Dear Scott: Attached are copies of a setback analysis we have prepared in support of this variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. As you can see from the analysis, there is little uniformity in the front setbacks. These vary from zero to almost fifty -five feet. However, a good number of these are less than ten feet, and the median setback of the nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10 -foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the front will enhance the public areas and open space of the tennis and club facilities to the rear of the parcel. In the case of Lot 2, the proposed I0 -foot set back allows the siting of the principal mass of the building on the plane of the street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area of the site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site - specific qualities of the proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have further questions about this matter. V'S truly yours, Stan Cla on AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl. Cc: Applicants PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS Planning • Urban, Landscape Architecture ' Transportation Studies _ Project Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 4 February 2004 TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 Far: 970.920.1628 E -Mai: clauson @scaplanning.com WEB: w scaplammng.com Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback Variance Dear Scott: Attached are copies of a setback analysis we have prepared in support of this variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. As you can see from the analysis, there is little uniformity in the front setbacks. These vary from zero to almost fifty -five feet. However, a good number of these are less than ten feet, and the median setback of the nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10 -foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the front will enhance the public areas and open space of the tennis and club facilities to the rear of the parcel. In the case of Lot 2, the proposed I0 -foot set back allows the siting of the principal mass of the building on the plane of the street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area of the site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site - specific qualities of the proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have further questions about this matter. V'S truly yours, Stan Cla on AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl. Cc: Applicants PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS D — Wagar /Deteweiler PUD Setback Analysis ease, co�uxeuo v�x 1 /\ O N O P i O Q l_J m9 W a� Y Y L L h h 7 i aavamo. 6no�6ti�,. sts }...,y )jovg4ag . ,.v ana to [B Sa ; 7—AL--; v�x 1 /\ O N O P i O Q l_J m9 W a� Y Y L L h h 7 C c c c 4 om(noo 'xaasv SNOIS1A31I s[sSpuV 43tglaS �wti Qfld .zaitanlajaQ/ a01aM iii x n:v ]3�35 ww e 31tl4 C c c c 4 ATTACHMENT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 517 Park Circle, Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Monday, 19 April, 2004 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, F.L. (Stan) Clauson, AICP, ASLA 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 of letters 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 26 day of March, 2004, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. _X_ 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) C . 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. Signal=-- -1 \, V 4 -- The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me thik—�x day of M �� — 200q by 9 L �v{ w • (iia s WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 11 a 6_i N Pu lic ATTACHMENTS: POF THE PUBLICATION OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) OVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday April 19, 2004, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, City Council Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot into two single - family lots and to reconstruct the demolished duplex into two single- family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow reduced front setbacks (from the required 25' to 10'), reduced north side setbacks (from the required 10' to 5') and smaller than minimum lot sizes (11,237 and 11,428 square foot lots are proposed, whereas the R -15 zone district requires minimum 15,000 square foot lots). The two parcels subject to the request are legally described as the north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums. For further information, contact Scott Woodford at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920 -5102, (or by email at scottw @ci.aspen.co.us). s/Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the As pen Times on March 27, 2004. City of Aspen Account Use Avery TEMPLATE 5160® /"®^ AGLEY JOSEPH A 424 PARK CIR #TH5 ASPEN. CO 81611 BENTLEY CARL F 427 PARK CIR ASPEN, CO 81611 CENTENNIAL ASPEN A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 100 LUKE SHORT CT ASPEN, CO 81611 COOKMAN WILLIAM THOMAS 508 PARK CIR ASPEN, CO 81611 DEGRAEVE ALAIN PO BOX 7975 ASPEN, CO 81612 FISHER CONSTANCE A 330 ANAYA RANCH RD GALISTEO, NM 87540 HIGHT NEIL C & SEWELL KATHRYN 520 E COOPER AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 KARAUS LINDA MARIE & GREGORY DONALD 510 PARK CIR ASPEN, CO 81611 LUU VINH PO BOX 8513 ASPEN, CO 81612 MOYER MARY 424 PARK CIR #6 ASPEN, CO 81611 W-11 .r�eU ✓ray �, /-fae c. ASPEN /PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY 530 E MAIN ST #001 ASPEN, CO 81611 BERNARD RANDY 100 HARKNESS RD PELHAM, MA 01002 -9776 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 CUNNINGHAM CAITLYN E 425 PARK CIR #A1 ASPEN, CO 81611 DICKENSON GWEN F 420 EAST HYMAN ASPEN, CO 81611 GLOOR JOHN L 500 PARK CIR ASPEN, CO 81611 HUA VINH PO BOX 2439 ASPEN, CO 81612 KRIEBEL KATHLEEN PO BOX 910 ASPEN, CO 81612 MERZBACH NINA & WILLIAM PO BOX 3465 ASPEN, CO 81612 MUNROE KRISTIN EPLER PO BOX 785 ASPEN, CO 81612 9 AVERY® 5160® BECKER ALAN K 950 MATCHLESS DR ASPEN, CO 81611 CARSON BARBARA PO BOX 10298 ASPEN, CO 81612 COLORADO MTN NEWS MEDIA PO BOX 272409 FT COLLINS, CO 80527 -2409 DAY ISABEL T & ESTER T 120 TURTLE COVE ASPEN, CO 81611 -9610 EPLER ANDI E PO BOX 785 ASPEN, CO 81612 GREENWOOD KRYSTINA 1050 MATCHLESS DR #2 ASPEN, CO 81611 INK! COFFEE COMPANY PO BOX 7961 ASPEN, CO 81612 LUU TONG KHON 435 E MAIN ST ASPEN, CO 81611 MORK HALBERT L FAMILY TRUST 77 ASPEN WAY ROLLING HILLS, CA 90274 NAGLE MELINDA LEE PO BOX 914 ASPEN, CO 81612 Use Avery TEMPLATE 5160® c Q AVERY® 5160® NARAT BENJAPORN PAULIDES BROOKE A PAULIDES HERBERT B & CAROLYN F FLAT 9 22 RED LION ST 415 PARK CIRCLE 160 CONCORD RD LONDON WC1 R4PS, UK ASPEN, CO 81611 -2478 LONGMEADOW, MA 01106 PIERCE ROBERT KING PITKIN COUNTY PO BOX 3118 530 E MAIN ST STE 302 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 SABATASSO MARY L FAMILY TRUST SMISEK LINDA L E 118 CHANNEL POINTE MALL 429 PARK CIR C -3 MARINA DEL RAY, CA 90292 ASPEN, CO 81611 SMUGGLER RACQUET CLUB SPECK KIM JENNIFER C/O SUE COOK PO BOX 9912 PO BOX 8788 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 WOLPIN LAUREN 424 PARK CIR TH -3 ASPEN, CO 81611 ROWARS CHARLES M 4990 SOUTHWEST 52ND STREET - STE 201 DAVIE, FL 33314 SMITH KATHLEEN M PO BOX 9173 ASPEN, CO 81612 -9173 WALDRON K BRENT COATES REID & WALDRON C/O 720 E HYMAN AVE ASPEN, CO 81611 ATTACHMENT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEA] Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 200 I, ����� l�%� �/ A (name, please print) being or representing an Apphcan�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: 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 of letters 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 (sign) 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 �rior 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. The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged beforq � M1me thisday of 2' r c� 200q, by it-;1 RE $17 PARK - NOTICE 6 OPIEN that a public hearfog wW be m Monday April 19. 2004: at �.. a mmtfog to at 5at9 P� before the Aspen City Cont -A Room, City Hall, 130 S. Calms St, . b o88dder m application for PUD.Ammdmmt, SubdWA=and GMQS Enot, tint to aubdMde the. Idating duple, lot d 517 Park Cock into taro slegleh Lily iota and to .1 hre the two devekpmeot rlgha from the dmtol- (shed duple, to ,ovs9tM two singkia n ty resF daces. The POD Mcendtant is requested to a I— amaher than raqubed drinarto lot an. for the R-15 ,one dkWet and reduced front and norOtsldayadsetbIlk, Eon further ldormatlon, contact Scott Woodford at the City of Aapm Community Dev opmmt Deparonmt, 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, CO (970) 9205102, s ,o�coua 41telmt Kahn IOanderud, Mayor AWw City Coun fl PublkhM in The Aj lamps m March. 27. 2004. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: Notary Public SARAH N ' OATES ..........: COO ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION 'GRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYAIAIL Charles M. Ro s February 24, 2004 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Scott Woodford, Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar /Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado Dear Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission: My name is Charles M. Rowars and I reside at 131 Smuggler Mountain Road, Aspen. My home directly overlooks the residence where Rich Wagar lived and wants to live. I am writing to you to express my support of the proposed lot split at 517 Park Circle. I have no opposition to the lot split and your recommendation of the lot split will provide an opportunity for improved redevelopment of the fire- damaged duplex. The resulting two houses will be more in keeping with the open qualities of the neighborhood. I have also been informed that the planning staff is proposing to restrict the available floor area for both properties to that of the original duplex. I feel that the restriction as currently proposed by the planning staff is inappropriate. It is my opinion that such a restriction is unfair to the parties involved and that both parties should be allowed to develop homes in accordance to the floor area tables appropriate to the current zone district. Very truly yours, /s/ Charles M. Rowars Charles M. Rowars 131 Smuggler Mountain Road, Aspen, Colorado 81611 970 - 925 -8037 A H. Montgomery Loud 401 Smuggler Mtn. Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 February 17, 2004 Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission c/o Scott Woodford, Planner City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: 0 Since we have lived in the neighborhood we certainly have the highest regard for the quality of our neighbors' homes. The proposed lot split allowing separate dwellings will provide for improved replacement of the building with two separate and more open sites. This would enhance the overall appearance of this extensive view plane. Very truly yours, H. Montgomer Loud 4e /HML 02/19/2004 14:58 FAX 702 382 4348 HUNTINGTON DEVELOPMENT G Q002 Feb -19. 2004 1:43PM No-3957 P. 2 MEMORANDUM Date: February 17, 2004 4 To; Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Attn: Scott Woodford, Planner From; Gerry Wendell Re; Wagar/Aetweiler Lot Split and PUD Amendment 517 Park Circle, Aspen, Colorado I drive by 517 Park Circle two or three times a day as I reside at 201 Silverlode Drive, Aspen. I am writing this letter to express my support of the•proposed lot split. I am of the belief that two single-family homes instead of one large duplex will improve the visual impact to the neighborhood_ I have also been informed that the planning staff has proposed restricting the available floor area to both properties to that of the original duplex. I believe that this is an inappropriate restriction, as the resulting houses will be too small to provide fox a reasonable return on their investment, It is my opinion, as a neighbor, that all properties in this district should be allowed to develop homes of reasonable size, in accordance with the floor area tables approprl a to the zone district. GjrYwwendel A/,� VU it V `STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning • Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management 15 January 2004 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner TELEPHONE 970.925.2323 City of Aspen FAX 970.920.1628 E-MAIL. g.com Community Development Department WEB. wwscaplammngxom 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot Split and PUD Review of the Wagar/Detweiler Property, 517 Park Circle Dear Scott: On behalf of the applicants and in response to comments provided by Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer, follow DRC review, we are providing a revised Dimensional Requirements Form and site plan for the proposed lot split and PUD at 517 Park Circle. Along with this, are providing an analysis of existing slopes on the property and revised slope reduction calculations. The slope reduction analysis shows that areas of steep slopes on the proposed Lot 2 of the subdivision exceed 25% of the existing lot area. We have therefore reduced the lot area of Lot 2 by 25% for purposes of calculating allowable floor area. For purposes of clarity, we have revised the dimensional requirements form into two sheets, one for each of the lots to be created. Lot 2 has been reduced by 2,857 s.f to a lot area of 8,571 s.f for purposes of calculating floor area. After consulting with Sarah Oates regarding the appropriateness of reassigning floor area within the PUD, we have averaged the allowable floor areas of Lot 1 and Lot 2, so as to obtain an equitable distribution for both property owners. This is reflected in the allowable and proposed floor areas for each lot as shown on the two Dimensional Requirements Form sheets. The site plan has been modified to show that a variance is requested for front and north side yard setbacks on each lot. The front yard setback is proposed to be reduced from 25 feet to 10 feet. We believe that this is consistent with the front setbacks on other adjacent properties and allows for better utilization of the property. Increasing the south sideyard setback to 15' and reducing the north sideyard setback to 5 feet on both lots will allow a greater separation between Lot 2 and existing residential development, while shifting both houses slightly toward the County easement granted to the property owners on the North. This also allows for better utilization of the property. I understand that these additional variance requests will require renoticing for the public hearing. An additional change shows the existing driveway at Lot 1 being abandoned. Lot 1 will continue to take access through the easement provide by the County to Wagar. Lot 2 shows a new curb cut that is spaced 10 feet within the property line. RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2004 A�� (SP[[EppN��p PLANNING AND DESIGN .SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND 'P}ItbXtE"'JPdYt'lk� Mr. Scott Woodford 15 January 2004 Page Two These changes should rectify the issues that were raised and allow the proposal to move forward to a public hearing before the Planning &Zoning Commission. Four copies of all documents are provided per your request. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Vv e tr_uly yours, Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl: 1. Slope Analysis Diagram 2. Dimensional Requirements Form, 2 pages 3. Revised Site Plan, dated 13 January 2003 Cc: Applicants RECEIVED JAN 1 6 20x4 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT 0 0 1 STAN CLAIISON ASSOCIATES, LLC 588 J7099V _7, Planning • Landscape Architecture 200 East Alain SlLeel• Aspen, Co 81611 (970)9252323 1 tax: ( 970) 920 - 1628 -~.Scaplann V..com•in(o@scaplanning.mn � �'j 25' FOUND /5 1339' MIMM i i / / A 2 -7Ep LtEMIC r \� Lot 1 1123: Property 12" Wile &.6m On'•eroy to Rem.—, 5' J O � 1 �m Monaco Ex &V Cut Cut Re —L .& &WiM Berm lop q Wogor— Detweiler Property 17 Nov. 2003 Revised -13 Jon 2003 Option Cl 1" 30" CW LOWE ME ID 20' so' s5' ap' JAN 1 ASPEN- / on0 ExuG'n9 K•gefofion !y ro rLO"WF e D.Ae»cy i 2 WA!R SRZ 7S� sf 10� / / v. a / 5' Wide Siaerdk 1 STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning • Landscape Archiiectum / 200 East Main Sired-Aspen, Co 81611 (970)9252323 lax. ( 970) 920 - 1628 -w .swplanning.c - inlo@smplanning.mn i / i i Area o exist g house 209 -309 slopes 898sf Abz. r1A 0 309 slopes or greater 2770sf 27704T= 3219sf 11428.8J* .25=2857.2 3219sf > 2857.2sf, therefore, 259 reduction for floor area applies � r t r grading RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2004 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Wogor— Detweiler Property 07 ✓onuory 2004 Slope Anonis 1 " =30' Attachment B -1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM - Lot 1 Project: Wager, Detweiler PUD Amendment Subdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R -15 Lot Size: 22.665 square feet Catherine parcel) Lot Area: Lot 1= 11.237 square feet (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the bigh water marls easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq /ft): Existing: 0 Proposed- Number of residential units: Existing. 2 Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: 0 1 Not determined Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing. 5,760 Allowable: Proposed- duplex 4,236 4,098 Principal bldg. height: Existing. 28 ft Allowable: Access bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: On -Site parking: Existing. 2 Required.• % Site coverage: Existing. 15 Required: % Open Space: Existing. 85 Required: Front Setback (feet): Existing: 25 Required: Rear Setback: Existing: 5 Required: Combined F/R: Existing. 30 Required- Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required- Side Setback: Existing: 80 Required- Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required- 25 ft Proposed: 25 ft 25 ft Proposed: 25 ft 2 Proposed.• Minimum of 2 N/A Proposed: N/A N/A Proposed: N/A 25 Proposed- 10 10 Proposed: 25 35 Proposed: 35 10 Proposed: 15 10 Proposed-, 5 20 Proposed- 20 Existing non - conformities or encroachments: A small portion of the building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size in the PUD of 11.237 square feet, a minimum front setback of ten (10) feet and a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet on the north side. RECEIVED JAN 16 2004 ASPEN S1 lo rttntr nrns -"4nKIT Attachment B - 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM — Lot 2 Project: Wager, Detweiler PUD Amendment, Subdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R -15 Lot Size: 22,665 square feet (fatheringparcel): Lot 2 = 11,428 square feet Lot Area: Lot 2 = 8.571 square feet, with slope reduction at 25% maximum (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq /ft): Existing: 0 Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: 2 Proposed* Number of bedrooms: Existing. 10 Proposed: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing.. 5.760 Allowable: duplex 3,959 Principal bldg. height: Access bldg. height: On -Site parking: % Site coverage: % Open Space: Front Setback (feet): Rear Setback: Combined F/R: Side Setback: Side Setback: Combined Sides: Existing. 28 ft Allowable: Eaasting: N/A Allowable: Existing: 2 Required: Existing. 15 Required: Existing: 85 Required: Existing. 25 Required: Existing: 5 Required: Existing. 30 Required: Existing. 0 Required: Existing. 80 Required: Existing: 80 Required: 0 1 m Proposed. 4,098 25 ft Proposed- 25 ft 25 ft Proposed- 25 R 2 Proposed: Minimum of 2 N/A Proposed- N/A N/A Proposed- N/A 25 Proposed: 10 10 Proposed.- 25 35 Proposed: 35 10 Proposed: 15 10 Proposed: 5 20 Proposed: 20 Existing non - conformities or encroachments: A small portion of the building_ as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size for the PUD of 11,428 square feet, a minimum front setback of ten 10) feet_ and a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet on the north side. RECEIVED JAN 16 2004 ASPEN 9UN rmky- nrnA nnockrr to i R 1 Attachment B DIMENSIONAL REQUIRE ENTS FORM Project: Waster Detweiler PUD Amendment,. Subdivision and GMQS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R -15 Lot Size: 22,665 square feet Lot Area: 19,166 square feet (approximateW for slope reduction (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) , Commercial net leasable (sq /ft): Ddsfing: 0 Proposed- Number of residential units: Existing: 2 Proposed- Number of bedrooms: Fxisfing. 10 Proposed- Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A I 2 Not determined Dimensions: Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing: 5,760 Allowable: 5,380 Proposed mss. 4,236 -Lot 1 duplex duplex 4,249 - Lot 2 Principal bldg. height: 'Existing. 28 ft Allowable: 28 ft Proposed, 28 ft Access bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: 25 ft Proposed.- 25 R On -Site parking: Existing. 4 Required.- 4 Proposed: Not detamwed % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required. N/A Proposed: Not de<amined % Open Space: Ecisfing: 85 Required.- N/A Proposed: Not determined Front Setback (feet): Existing: 25 Required: 25 Proposed: 25 Rear Setback: Existing: 5 Required: 10 Proposed. • '10 Combined F/R: Exisfing: 30 Required.- 35 Proposed: 35 Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required- 10 Proposed: 10 Side Setback: Existing: 80 Required. 10 Proposed. • 10 Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required- 20 Proposed: 20 Existing non - conformities or encroachments: A small portion of the building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size in the PUD of 11,237 square feet. RECEIVED JAN 16 2004 U, 4 February 2004 Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback Variance Dear Scott: i "STAN CLAusoN ASSOCIATES, LLC Planning • Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAST MAIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 TELEPHONE: 970.925 2323 FAx: 970.920.1628 E -MAIL clauson@scaplanning.com WEB:w Rcaplanning.com Attached are copies of a setback analysis we have prepared in support of this variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. As you can see from the analysis, there is little uniformity in the front setbacks. These vary from zero to almost fifty -five feet. However, a good number of these are less than ten feet, and the median setback of the nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10 -foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the front will enhance the public areas and open space of the tennis and club facilities to the rear of the parcel. In the case of Lot 2, the proposed 10 -foot set back allows the siting of the principal mass of the building on the plane of the street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area of the site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site - specific qualities of the proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have further questions about this matter. VFg truly yours, Stan C L P, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl. Cc: Applicants PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS V I` u c N O � a; u c `O o cn A v V11 I Mn INI1 ""' ` " "' " "' "'I` ° "' Wagar Deteweiler PUD DATE: SHEET: "` t Setback Analysis REVISIONS: - V ASPEN, coaoxnuo 1 ATTACHMENT 7 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 517 Park e Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: Tuesday February 17, 2004 STATE OF COLORADO ss. County of Pitldn I, Stan Clauson (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. X 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 of letters 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 29 day of Janu 2004, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. X 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 owners no and sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy f the 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. Signaturek I- The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 29 day ofJanuar- 2004, by g-� WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: 11 I,9A j07040,S- No Public ATTACHMENTS: YOFTREPUBLICA77ON OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN OVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL I ..1 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 13, 2003 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 Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUD), Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot into two single - family lots and to reconstruct the demolished duplex into two single - family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes (11,237 and 11,428 square foot lots proposed, whereas the Code requires 15,000 square foot lots in the R -15 zone district). The two parcels subject to the request are legally described as the north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums. For further information, contact Scott Woodford at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920 -5102, (or by email at scottw@ci.aspen.co.us). s /Jasmine Ty¢re, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on December 27, 2003 City of Aspen Account -s MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked -off below: X ........... City Engineer X ......... Community Development Engineer O ......... Community Development Director X ........... Zoning Officer O ........... Housing Director X ........... Parks Department X ........... Aspen Fire Marshal X ........... City Water X ........... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District X ........... Building Department O ........... Environmental Health O ........... Electric Department O ........... Holy Cross Electric O ........... City Attorney O ........... Streets Department O ........... Historic Preservation Officer O ........... Pitkin County Planning O ........... County & City Disaster Coordinator O ......... Transportation FROM: Scott Woodford, (scottwAci.aspen.co.us) Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St.; Aspen, CO 81611 Phone - 920.5102 Fax - 920.5439 RE: 517 Park Circle — PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for reconstruction of the burned out duplex (that currently sits on one lot) into two single - family lots (please see attached application for further explanation). DATE: December 5 2003 DATE OF DRC MEETING: December 17. 2003 at 1:30PM. • NOTE: IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE MEETING, PLEASE EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS TO JOHN NIEWHOEHNER Oohnn @ci.aspen.co.us) BY NOON ON DECEMBER 17, 2003. THOSE COMMENTS WILL THEN BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DRC MINUTES. ATTACHMENT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: _) (1 V I \ (, l LIr `iE Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: __�Zz L l t 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, , -I e tM � .S L- (� a-/ (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: , 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 J�i e and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters 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 (sign) 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 26304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) daf s prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class po tage ove rent, prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal gent, 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. nature The fore oing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged befor me thl day Of r 12001 1, by _ t �� WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: Ll / ,-;;t --VQD?" 7(RMFTIDN GNRN that a Public - 'IYresdayI FEbNarY l7, e held at 43h P.m. tote th' Notary Public mg to a"d ning Commission. S s S. Galena St.. W ^w¢ by Bcation submitted rnb Bureue nt loPmen[ nit lo[ r.-SARAH ubdivision. lax into de M exia^P thlden- nY 1 ^m and t" reconstruct ,lea mW two single-im^ity allow Uesled t0 JD Amendment b req r red 25 to tit setbacks (from the W( to 'ere, ATTACHMENTS: �d north side setbacks r in 5) nod smaller hea minimum l sm `. ;e �as[ne'cOBdee ren�iret O�116 a4� . R-15 ,p„e dlstIWO the ^^'n �- COPY OF THE PUBLICATION I the R- uest are legnity descdhed :ct ro the condommlums dl Ip[ 6, m' "`a"" .. .RAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) rk North c _ �,Mtnct Scott WOOdlo -d C O% AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL ATTACHMENT AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ,S 7 Pa V 1, 1 v I As' pen,`COI SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 1/ 3i/=7 200_ STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ��� L�/l`� `z/ 11/(M (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: 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 fi�een (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attaches 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 of letters not }; r less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days t` % 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 (sign) 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) da s prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class - Vage prepaid U.S. mail to any federal agency, state, county, municipal govem(nent, 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. aG" � -gnature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged b fore me this �ff day of ��2 200 , by -�� — I x zsC +, n-Mff, WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL RE 517 PAM f,S11BDF vfst N cMOS NMonWm 6 GIVEN that a pudic hearing wW be held on day. Jeri ary 13, 21103 at a My commission expires: t Jl /i- meeting to begin m 4.30 p.m. before the Aspen rwmmg red Zoning Commission, slater CHIas Room, City Hall, 130 S Cahn. St.. Aspen, to con, �7 RY PVe -. / .:.... •'•. sides am appllcatim submitted by Rich Wagm, ; Dirk Delo elkr and Deborah Burek requesting ap planned Notary Public prove, of a unit Development Ammb SAM meet (PUD). Subdivision, ens GMQS Exemption Afi to subdivide an existing duplex lot Into tiro sin �ATEg gtefemlly tots and to rmosmtruct the demolished (� duplex Into two abhgtehmty residences. The PUD Amendment Is requested to allow smaller 17A then minimum lot slxs (11,217 and 11,428 square ` ...•' toot bb proposed, whereas the Code requires o% 60%. 15,000 Nome toot lots In the R45 some, district). The two parcels subject to the request are kgaity described ar the north and south eondmdworns ATTACHMENTS: of Lot 6, Sumn, parts North Condominiums. For huther Informatlm, canted Scot Woodford st the City of Aspen Community Development De- pmhnsoL 13o s. Gomm st., Arisen, co (9m 92o- COPY OF THE PUBLICATION 5102, (m by mMll at scdholisaupen.m.us). s /JasmNe TMe, Chat 4PH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) Pubill. J�A. pen Times o0 December 27, 2003.(1 ?iD GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL RICH WAGAR ASSOCIATES Aspen & The Roaring Fork Valley Real Estate January 16, 2004 Stan Clausen Stan Clausen Associates, LLC 200 E. Main Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: City of Aspen Community Development Department. Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Form. Dear Stan, Please find enclosed the above mentioned document signed by Rich. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further questions. Sincerely yours ,1 n fifer 6 ner for Rich Wagar 601 East Hyman Suite #104, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone (970) 920 -3131 • Facsimile (970) 920 -1010 Email rich @9203131.com • www.wagarrealestate.com I CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Rich Wagar (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Wagar/Detwedcr PUD (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 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 $ 2520.00 which is for 12 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 Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director g:\support\forms\agrpayas.doc 1 /10/00 APPLIC By:_ Date: 13 November 2003 Mailing Address: Rich Wagar c/o Wagar Associates, LLC 601 E. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: The Aspen PI i�pg & Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Allgaiei, Deputy Director of Community Development FROM: Scott Woodford, City Planner RE: 517 PARK CIRCLE, PUBLIC HEARING, PUD AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, GMQS EXEMPTION; RESOLUTION NO. �, SERIES 2004 DATE: February 17, 2003 A view of the existing, fire damaged duplex from Park Circle. The applicants propose to tear down the duplex, subdivide the property into two lots and construct two single - family residences. The driveway shown will be abandoned and moved to the south for access to one home, while the ` existing access to the north will remain for access to the other. PROJECT: $1 J PARK CIRCLE REQUEST SUMMARY: Approval of a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUD), Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption to subdivide an existing duplex lot into two single - family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single - family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than required minimtun lot sizes and reduced front and north side setbacks. APPLICANT: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Btuek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates ZONE DISTRICT: R -15, PUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The north and south condominiums of Lot 6, Sunny Park North Condominiums STAFF APPROVAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, RECOMMENDATION: SUBDIVISION, AND GMQS EXEMPTION, WITH CONDITIONS 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 ..4 PROJECT SUMMARY: On April 12, 2003, a fire occurred in the duplex at 517 Park Circle, rendering the structure uninhabitable. Instead of re- building the non - conforming duplex (non- conforming due to its floor area) in its original configuration, which would be allowed by the Land Use Code, the applicants wish to use the two development rights on the property from the duplex and subdivide the property into two lots in order to build two single - family residences. The two lots that the applicant proposes to create are 11,237 square feet and 11,428 square feet, which are smaller than what the existing R -15, PUD zoning on the property requires for minimum lot area per dwelling unit (which is 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit). In addition, the applicant is requesting approval to establish reduced the required front setback (from 25' to 10') and north side yard setback (from 10' to 5'). According to the application, the two single - family residences proposed to be built would be sized in accordance with the R -15 zone district standards for floor area, with slope reduction taken into account. Two separate, 12' wide driveways are proposed to access each lot from Park Circle and a 5' wide sidewalk aligned on the back of the curb on Park Circle is also included in the plan. APPLICABLE LAND USE SECTIONS: In order to accommodate the above development request, the following land use approvals are required: 1) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: In accordance with Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, a PUD Amendment may be utilized to establish alternative dimensional standards. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing PUD in order to allow the proposed lots to be less than the required 15,000 square feet per dwelling unit and to reduce the front and north side yard setback. Final Review Authority: City Council. 2) GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS) EXEMPTIONS: Per Section 26.470.070(B) of the Code, a GMQS Exemption may be requested for the construction of a "Detached Single - Family or Duplex Dwelling Unit ". The applicant requests this extension for the construction of two single- family dwelling units after demolition of the existing duplex, which is exempt from GMQS, subject to compliance with certain standards (staff review of those standards follows in the report). Final Review Authority: Community Development Director. 3) SUBDIVISION: Section 26.480 of the Code pertains to Subdivision and subdivision review is required in this instance for the proposed split of the existing duplex lot into two single- family lots. Final Review Authority: City Council, 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 2 EXISTING CONDITIONSBACKGROUND INFORMATION: According to City files, the Sunny Park and Sunny Park North Subdivision were annexed into the City in 1966 and zoned later in 1967. Per the City GIS records, the duplex was constructed in 1981. A PUD overlay was established over this property at some point, however, city records do not indicate when this took place or for what reason. The applicants have an easement agreement with Pitkin County, who own the abutting property to the north, to utilize a portion of County property for landscaping and access purposes. At this point, the easement agreement between the applicants and the County will continue with the new subdivision, although the applicant will abandon the driveway access that utilizes County property so the driveway is completely on their property. The duplex is an existing non - conforming structure with respect to allowable floor area. According to the application, the duplex is 5,760 sq. ft. of floor area, whereas the Code allows only 5,380 sq. ft.. As a note, Section 26.312.030 of the Code states that non- conforming structures which are destroyed through "non - purposeful destruction" may be restored as of right if a building permit for reconstruction is issued within twenty -four months of the date of demolition. In other words, if the applicants wished to replace the duplex in its existing configuration, the Code would allow them to do so, regardless of its existing non - conforming structure status. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT: According to the Code, among the purposes of the PUD is to encourage flexibility and innovation in development in order to meet the goals of the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and achieve a higher quality, more creative design and site planning. To help accomplish these and other goals, the PUD can be used to adjust the dimensional requirements of an underlying zone district. In this case, the applicant is using the PUD to establish site specific dimensional standards for minimum lot area per dwelling unit and the front and the north side yard setbacks. According to Section 26.445.020 of the Land Use Code, a development application for a PUD may be applied for on parcels over 27,000 square feet for the purposes of residential, commercial, tourist, or other development purposes. An application may be applied for on a lot of less than 27,000 square feet, according to the Code, if the Community Development Director determines that the development of the property may have the ability to further the goals of the AACP and that the provisions of the PUD land use review process will best serve the interests of the community. The subject site is only 22,665 square feet. The Director allowed the applicant to proceed with this application despite the smaller site because of the probability that it could further the goals of the AACP. Staff has analyzed how the application furthers these goals below, along with an explanation of the PUD request and staffs position on the issue (also see Exhibit A for Staff Findings related to the PUD Review Standards): 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 3 MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT: In the R -15 zone district, the required minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 15,000 square feet. The applicant is requesting PUD approval to create two lots, with one lot being 11,237 sq. ft. and the other 11,428 sq. ft.) SETBACK REQUIREMENTS: The following table Summarizes the setback requirements in the R -15 zone district and the applicant's proposed setbacks for the two new lots: STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT): Staff supports the request to establish smaller than minimum lot sizes because allowing the applicant to go from a duplex to two, single - family residences will further the goals of the AACP and be a benefit to the neighboring properties by breaking up the one large mass of the existing duplex into two smaller masses. As the applicant indicates in their support for the amendment, this change will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and will also help open up view corridors from the public street towards the mountains to the south and southwest. The AACP emphasizes the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the natural beauty and environment of the Aspen area. In addition, the proposed smaller lot sizes are not greatly out of compliance with the lot sizes of the surrounding single - family residences (see Exhibit E for this comparison) Staffs support of the smaller lot sizes through the PUD is, however, conditioned upon limiting the amount of floor area for the two proposed single - family dwelling units to the total amount of square footage in the original duplex. According to the application, the floor area for the existing duplex is 5,760 square feet. Staff recommends that the two single - family residences split this square footage in a manner chosen by the applicants. Staff proposes that the floor area of the new lots be limited to that of the existing duplex for the following reasons: The limitation allows the application to better comply with the goals of the AACP. One of those goals, which was put forth by the applicant, was the enhancement of the neighborhood by splitting up the solid mass of the existing duplex into two, separate masses, thereby improving neighborhood aesthetics and opening up view -planes towards the ski mountain and Shadow Mountain. Staff agrees with this contention, but only if the existing duplex mass were split up 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT - PAGE 4 R -15 Re ! Pro' osed: " Front Yazd Setback 25' 10' Rear Yard Setback 10' 10' North Side Yazd Setback 10" 5' South Side Yazd Setback 10' IF 15' STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT): Staff supports the request to establish smaller than minimum lot sizes because allowing the applicant to go from a duplex to two, single - family residences will further the goals of the AACP and be a benefit to the neighboring properties by breaking up the one large mass of the existing duplex into two smaller masses. As the applicant indicates in their support for the amendment, this change will be an aesthetic improvement to the neighborhood and will also help open up view corridors from the public street towards the mountains to the south and southwest. The AACP emphasizes the preservation, enhancement, and restoration of the natural beauty and environment of the Aspen area. In addition, the proposed smaller lot sizes are not greatly out of compliance with the lot sizes of the surrounding single - family residences (see Exhibit E for this comparison) Staffs support of the smaller lot sizes through the PUD is, however, conditioned upon limiting the amount of floor area for the two proposed single - family dwelling units to the total amount of square footage in the original duplex. According to the application, the floor area for the existing duplex is 5,760 square feet. Staff recommends that the two single - family residences split this square footage in a manner chosen by the applicants. Staff proposes that the floor area of the new lots be limited to that of the existing duplex for the following reasons: The limitation allows the application to better comply with the goals of the AACP. One of those goals, which was put forth by the applicant, was the enhancement of the neighborhood by splitting up the solid mass of the existing duplex into two, separate masses, thereby improving neighborhood aesthetics and opening up view -planes towards the ski mountain and Shadow Mountain. Staff agrees with this contention, but only if the existing duplex mass were split up 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT - PAGE 4 ,u between the new homes. If the new homes together are larger than the duple they replaced, then the goal of reducing mass and opening up views has not been achieved. 1 The floor area tables in each zone district of the Code are weighted towards allowing higher FAR's on smaller lots. The applicants proposal to use the R -15 standards for allowable floor area on the smaller sized lots would result in a higher FAR than what would be achieved if the lots were the required minimum of 15,000 sq. ft.. For example, on the proposed 11,237 sq. ft. lot, 4,236 sq. ft. of floor area would be allowed in the R -15 zone district, which results in a .37 FAR. If the lot were to instead meet the minimum lot size in the zone district (15,000 sq. ft.) and the structure were to be limited to 2,880 sq. ft., in accordance with the staff recommendation (half the size of the existing duplex) the resulting FAR would be .30. The chart below illustrates these scena. . r 4[K O i-It Different Lot Size: AI wable Floor Res Iting FAR: Scenarios: rea in R4 5 Applicants Proposal: 11,237 sq. ft. 11,428 sq. ft. 4,236 sq. ft. t24 q. ft. i, u15 .38 d .37 Compliance with a If 3 T R -15 Minimum 15,000 sq. fr. I 4,500 sq. fr. IF .30 Lot Size: Staff 11,237 sq. ft. 2,880 sq. ft. .26 Recommendation: 1 1,428 sq. ft. 2,880 s . ft. .25 Without the PUD allowing smaller than minimum lot sizes, two single - family structures would not be allowed on this parcel. Since staff is recommending that the City relax its standards to allow the two- single family residences, staff feels it is appropriate to place reasonable limitations on the size of the new structures to help them better conform to the neighborhood. STAFF POSITION ON PUD REQUEST (SETBACKS): Staff supports the reduced setbacks because the proposed 10' front setbacks are in conformance with the average front setbacks in the vicinity. Per Exhibit F, the median setback of the surrounding properties, while they vary from 0' up to 54', is 9.9'. In addition, the 10' setback will allow the homes to have a more engaging presence to the streetscape, rather than being setback. The reduced setbacks on the north side yard will allow the new structures to have additional buffer from the apartment complex to the south. The applicant has agreed to more stringent south side yard setbacks (15' versus 10') in exchange for the reduced setbacks on the north. 2. GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM (GMOS): In order to obtain the development rights to build the single - family residences, an exemption to the GMQS is necessary. The following is an explanation of the exemption and staff position on its compliance with the review criteria (Staff Findings can be found in Exhibit B): 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 5 cr r i >�.fC DETACHED SINGLE - FAMILY OR DUPLEX DWELLING UNIT: According to Section 26.470.070(B), in order to qualify for a single - family exemption, the applicant shall have the following three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single - family dwelling unit being constructed. Per staff's recommendation of limiting the size of the two single - family residences, the above requirement is not applicable. Per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement form, � or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAA of the new structures compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. Despite this, Ae �p icant still qualifies for the exemption. If P &Z approves the applicant's pro4a to allow the new §ingle family homes to be larger than the floor area of the existing duplex, then the a�Pplicant would pay a fee in lieu for the amount of e�r �b increase in floor area from the Ap the new structures. 3. SUBDIVISION: Staff has reviewed all of the subdivision criteria in Exhibit C and have found the request to comply with all of the applicable criteria. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE (DRC) REFERRAL COMMENTS: The DRC meeting was held on December 17, 2003. The comments from that meeting are attached in Exhibit D. STAFF SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle, with conditions as put forth in the attached resolution. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. _, Series of 2004, for Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for 517 Park Circle" ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Staff Findings - Planned Unit Development Standards Exhibit B: Staff Findings - GMQS Exemption Exhibit C: Staff Findings — Subdivision Exhibit D: Referral (DRC) Comments Exhibit E: Lot Size Analysis Exhibit F: Setback Analysis Exhibit G: Application 517 PARK CIRCLE STAFF REPORT PAGE 6 RESOLUTION N0., (SERIES OF 2004) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT, SUBDIVISION, AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPERTY AT 517 PARK CIRCLE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH AND SOUTH CONDOMINIUMS OF LOT 6, SUNNY PARK NORTH CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737 - 074 -01- 016/017 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek, represented by Stan Clauson Associates, LLC for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption to subdivide the existing duplex lot into two single - family lots and utilize the two development rights from the demolished duplex to construct two single - family residences. The PUD Amendment is requested to allow smaller than minimum lot sizes per dwelling unit and reduced front and north side yard setbacks; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Building Department, Fire, Streets, Parks and Water Departments as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment, Subdivision and Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.445 of the Land Use Code, PUD approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.480 of the Land Use Code, Subdivision approval may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.570 of the Land Use Code, GMQS Exemption approval may be granted by the Community Development Director; however, - 7 - according to Section 26.304.060 of the Land Use Code the applicant has agreed to combine this administrative review with the other land use approvals sought; and, WHEREAS, the PUD Amendment and Subdivision review by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on February 17, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project and where, by a _ to _ (_-_) vote, recommended City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption, with the findings and conditions listed hereinafter; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the PUD Amendment, Subdivision, and GMQS Exemption for the property at 517 Park Circle, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1: The approval is subject to the following conditions: Prior to issuance of a building permit for either or both of the proposed single - family residences: a. Park Dedication fees shall be paid for any additional bedrooms that are added above and beyond what currently exists on the site. b. Both of the new single - family residences shall demonstrate their compliance with the Residential Design Standards. c. An outdoor lighting plan for each residence shall be submitted. d. The building permit application must demonstrate that the landscape berms do not obstruct the site distance for vehicles leaving exiting each driveway onto the public street, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. e. An encroachment license shall be applied for and received from the City Engineering Department for all improvements in the city right -of -way, including the landscape berms. f. The City Parks Department shall review any landscaping and irrigation system located in the city right -of -way. g. The building permit plans shall reflect the City Municipal Code requirement that driveways must be setback at least 10 feet from the property line. h. The applicant shall be able to use the existing 6" tap to serve both proposed dwellings, but a shared service agreement will be required prior to sign off of any building permits. Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase. i. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. _g_ A subdivision agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days following City Council approval. hl\i\" The floor ea of the proposed single - family residences on the new lots shall be limited to sq. ft., which is the amount of floor area of the existing duplex. A note indicatikg this floor area limitation shall be placed on the subdivision plat. The applicant shall abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. 5. PUD Plans shall be recorded within 180 days of the final approval by City Council. 6. The applicant shall file a Notice of PUD in the Clerk and Recorders office of Pitkin County subsequent to receipt of a development order, or prior to issuance of a building permit. Section 2: This Resolution 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 3• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution 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. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on February 17, 2004. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: David Hoefer, Asst. City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chair -9- EXHIBIT A STAFF FINDINGS: PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. A development application for PUD shall comply with the following standards and requirements (staff findings follow each requirement): A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential'. Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area," which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single- family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single - family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. _ STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The applicant is requesting exemption from the GMQS for construction of two detached single - family dwelling unit. to- B. Establishment of Dimensional Requirements: The PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD. The dimensional requirements of the underlying zone district shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. The proposed dimensional requirements are listed below: Dimensional Requirements Comparison (units measured in feet or square feet) Minimum Lot Size (square feet) Lot1 ......................... Lot2 ......................... 15,000 ............... 11,237 15,000 ............... 11,428 Minimum Lot Area per Dwelling Unit Lot 1 ......................... 15,000............... 11,237 Lot 2 ......................... 15,000............... 11,428 Minimum Lot Width 75 feet 1 75 feet Minimum Front Yard Setback 125 feet 110 feet Minimum North Side Yard Setback 1 10 feet 15 feet Minimum South Side Yard Setback 110 feet 1 15 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 110 feet 110 feet Maximum Height 25 feet 25 feet Minimum Distance b/w Buildings on 10 feet 10 feet the Lot Minimum Percent of Open Space No Requirement No Requirement 4,080 sq. ft., plus 7 sq. ft. /each add'I. 100 sq. ft. in lot area 2,880 square feet per Allowable Floor Area (FAR) up to max. of 4,500 residences sq. ft. (minus slope Minimum Off Street Parking 12 spaces /unit 12 spaces /unit 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of, and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade, and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man-made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking, and historical resources. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Generally, staff finds that the proposed dimensional standards (specifically with regard to the smaller than minimum lot sizes) are appropriate for the site for the above characteristics and the proposed lot sizes are in general conformance with surrounding properties. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing, and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES With the exception of the smaller than minimum lot sizes, the proposal complies with all of the required dimensional standards for the R -15 zone district. With respect to the lot sizes, staff has conditioned the approval to limit the size of the two single - family residences to the total size of the existing duplex. With this limit, staff feels that an appropriate scale, mass, site coverage and open s ace for the neighborhood will result. The appropriate number of off -street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any non - residential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the city. _ STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The applicant proposes to comply with the parking requirement in the Code for residential uses, which is 2 spaces per unit. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: -12- a) There is not sufficient water pressure, drainage capabilities, or other utilities to service the proposed development. b) There are not adequate roads to ensure fire protection, snow removal, and road maintenance to the proposed development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A Adequate public facilities are either already in place or will be upgraded at the owner's sole expense in order to meet the expected demand. No reductions in density, therefore, are required. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: a) The land is not suitable for the proposed development because of ground instability or the possibility of mud flow, rock falls or avalanche dangers. b) The effects of the proposed development are detrimental to the natural watershed, due to runoff, drainage, soil erosion, and consequent water pollution. c) The proposed development will have a pernicious effect on air quality in the surrounding area and the City. d) The design and location of any proposed structure, road, driveway, or trail in the proposed development is not compatible with the terrain or causes harmful disturbance to critical natural features of the site. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A There exists no natural hazards or critical site features as the site has already been developed. No reductions in density, therefore, are required. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided, or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with, and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses, and characteristics. -13- STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The applicant does not propose an increase in the amount of allowed density. C. Site Design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man-made features and the adjacent public spaces, and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man-made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A There are no existing natural or man -made features on the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past, or contribute to the identity of the town. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES In this instance, it is an advantage to the neighborhood and community to have the structures separated to open up vistas and open space which are currently being negatively impacted by the existing duplex. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate, and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The proposed lot layout improves the orientation to the public street over the existing situation. The current duplex is not parallel with the street. The new lots will allow the new structures to be parallel with the street, which would comply with the requirement of the Residential Design Standards of having structures properly oriented to the street. With the addition of sidewalks along the front of the lots, the new lots will provide increased visual interest and engagement to pedestrian and motorists. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Both structures will be able to be served by emergency and service vehicles directly from the public street. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. - 14- STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES A sidewalk along the Park Circle will be constructed. The individual structures will be required to comply with all applicable regulatory requirements related to handicap access. 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Each structure constructed on the newly created lots will be required to comply with all Building Departments requirements related to site drainage. 7. For non - residential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? N/A There are no non - residential uses proposed. D. Landscape Plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the city, with surrounding parcels, and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man-made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES According to the application, some of the existing vegetation will need to be moved around on the site to accommodate the new configuration and the new sidewalk. There exists no "significant" natural or man -made features requiring preservation. Some landscaping along the edge of the property fronting Park Circle is proposed to help provide some screening and privacy to the structures. E. Architectural Character. It is the purpose of this standard to encourage architectural interest, variety, character, and visual identity in the proposed development and within the City while promoting efficient use of resources. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, legibility of the building's use, the building's proposed massing, proportion, scale, orientation to public spaces and other buildings, use of materials, and other attributes which may significantly represent the character of the proposed development. There shall be approved as part of the final development plan 15 - an architectural character plan, which adequately depicts the character of the proposed development. The proposed architecture of the development shall: 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the city, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for, and indicative o£, the intended use, and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade, and vegetation and by use of non- or less - intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice, and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The application doesn't include any specific building plans for the two proposed single - family residences as they haven't been designed yet. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the Residential Design Standards. F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both public safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures, and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall be in compliance with the Outdoor Lighting Standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements, and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES No lighting plan was submitted with this application as the proposed structures have not yet been designed. At time of building permit, the City will review the plans to ensure they comply with the lighting ordinance. G. Common Park, Open Space, or Recreation Area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space, or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: 1. The proposed amount, location, and design of,the common park, open space, or recreation area enhances the character of the proposed development, considering existing and proposed structures and natural landscape features of the property, provides visual relief to the property's built form, and is available to the mutual benefit of the various land uses and property users of the PUD. CKs 2. A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park and recreation areas is deeded in perpetuity (not for a number of years) to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the PUD or ownership is proposed in a similar manner. 3. There is proposed an adequate assurance through a legal instrument for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a deed restriction against future residential, commercial, or industrial development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The applicant is not proposing any common park, open space, or recreational area. H. Utilities and Public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities, or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES According to the applicant and the per the review of the Development Review Committee (DRC) adequate utilities and public facilities exist to serve the proposed development. I. Access and Circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: 1. Each lot, structure, or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Both of the proposed single- family structures will have adequate driveway access off of Park Circle. The City Engineer has requested that the applicant maintain adequate site distance at the point where the driveways to this project intersect with Park Circle, which may include pruning or moving existing landscaping. In addition, sidewalks along the Park Circle in front of the property will be installed by the applicant, thereby improving pedestrian access and safety in an area of the street that is narrow and on a curve. - 17 - 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points, and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The two access points to the individual lots should not create any traffic congestion due to their low density and to the limited number of trips in and out of the site that are created by the average single- family house. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of, or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system, and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts, or other entryway expressions for the PUD, or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Criteria 43, 44, and 95 are not applicable in this case. Regarding criteria #4, the applicant is proposing to install a sidewalk along Park Circle for the portion that fronts the property. J. Phasing of Development Plan. (Note: this criteria does not apply to Conceptual PUD applications) The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: 1. All phases, including the initial phase, shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. 2. The phasing plan describes physical areas insulating, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. 3. The proposed phasing plan ensures the necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees -in -lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the PUD, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures are realized concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. _STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? NOT APPLICABLE No phasing of construction is anticipated at this time. is- EXHIBIT B STAFF FINDINGS: GMQS EXEMPTION Section 26.470.070 of the Land Use Code applies in this situation, as described below. B. Detached single-family or duplex dwelling unit. The following shall be exempt from the growth management scoring and competition procedures: 1) the construction of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling on a lot that was subdivided or was a legally described parcel prior to November 14, 1977, that complies with the provisions of Section 26.480.020(E), or 2) the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling, or 3) the remodel or expansion of a single - family dwelling into a duplex dwelling. This exemption shall not be applied to any lot for which any other development allotment is currently being sought or is approved. This exemption shall not be deducted from the respective annual development allotments established pursuant to Section 26.470.050 or from the Aspen Metro Area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review is by the Community Development Director. This exemption shall be granted only if the following standards are met. 1. Single - family. In order to qualify for a single - family exemption, the applicant shall have three (3) options: a. providing an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) pursuant to Section 26.520; b. paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended; or c. recording a resident - occupancy (RO) deed restriction on the single - family dwelling unit being constructed. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The portion of the section above related to "the replacement after demolition of one or two detached residential units or a duplex dwelling ", is applicable in this case and provides the exemption the applicant requests. As the Community Development Department is stipulating that the floor area of the proposed single - family residences to be constructed on the newly created lots be limited to the amount of floor area of the existing duplex, there are no requirements for providing and ADU or paying the fee in lieu in order to qualify for the GMQS Exemption. Per the Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, requirement for an ADU or payment of the fee in lieu shall only be provided for the "net" increase in FAR of the new structure compared to the demolished structure. Since there is no net increase in FAR, no mitigation is required in this case. 19- ExHIBIT C STAFF FINDINGS: SUBDIVISION The Definitions section (26.104.100) of the Land Use Code explains that subdivision approval is required whenever leasehold interests will be transferred. Section 26.480.050 states that a development application for subdivision review shall comply with the following standards and requirements: A. General Requirements. a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan (AACP). STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The future land use map in the AACP shows the subject site as "Residential ". Therefore, the proposal to subdivide the existing lot into two single - family lots is in compliance with the future direction of the AACP. The project is also generally consistent with the applicable policies and goals of the AACP. The applicable elements of the AACP include the desire to "preserve, enhance, and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area, " which is accomplished by splitting up a very linear, outdated duplex into two smaller masses with much improved architectural design and by improving view corridors from Park Circle towards the ski hill and Shadow Mountain by creating separate masses as opposed to a single wall created by the existing duplex. b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES The existing character of the surrounding area is a mix of older apartments and condominiums interspersed with several large and recently constructed single - family homes. There is no one prevalent type of land use. The addition of two single - family residences will contribute to this mix and will, therefore, be consistent with the character of the surrounding area. c. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes that this development will not adversely affect the future development of the area. d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of this Title. -20- STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES All applicable requirements, including with the zoning requirements of the R -15 zone district are being met with the exception of the minimum lot sizes, which are being established through the PUD process. B. Suitability of Land for Subdivision. a. Land Suitability. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents in the proposed subdivision. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? YES Although the site does contain some areas of steep slope, the property has already been developed with the existing duplex without any problems from natural hazards, so staff is confident that the site is suitable for development. b. Spatial Pattern Efficient. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public costs. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I YES Staff believes that the subdivision has been designed to avoid all of the above spatial patterns. C. Improvements. The improvements set forth at Chapter 26.580 shall be provided for the proposed subdivision. These standards may be varied by special review (See, Chapter 26.430) if the following conditions have been met: 1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivision design standards would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development areas, and/or the goals of the community. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. 2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. STAFF FINDING: DOES IT COMPLY? N/A No variations are proposed to the subdivision design standards. sure D. Affordable Housing. A subdivision which is comprised of replacement dwelling emits shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program. A subdivision which is comprised of new dwelling units shall be required to provide affordable housing in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A The standards of Chapter 26.520, Replacement Housing Program, are not applicable because there is no replacement housing involved. E. School Land Dedication. Compliance with the School Land Dedication Standards set forth at Chapter 26.630. Applicability. School land dedication standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of Aspen which contain residential units. An applicant may make a cash payment in -lieu of dedicating land to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards of this Section. This section of the subdivision regulations requires the dedication of land or the payment of an in -lieu fee for each new residential unit in a subdivision. STAFF FINDING: I DOES IT COMPLY? I N/A Even though a new subdivision is being created, no additional residential units are being created above and beyond what exists on the site now. The purpose of the school land dedication fees is to ensure that the current level of service is maintained as development occurs and school enrollment grows. As there is not net new growth occurring with this proposal, staff would interpret the requirement to not be applicable in this instance. -22- EXHIBIT D DRC MINUTES MEMORANDUM To: Development Review Committee From: John Niewoehner, Community Development Engineer, DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: December 17, 2003 Re: 12/17/03 DRC Minutes: 517 Park Circle — PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS Attendees: Scott Woodford, Case Planner - Community Development Department Nick Adeh, Engineering Department John Niewoehner, Community Development Department Phil Overeynder, Water Department Tom Bracewell, Sanitation District Brian Flynn, Parks Department Ed VanWalraven, Fire Department Denis Murray, Building Department Janette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Tim Ware, Parking Stan Clauson, representative for applicant At the December 17, 2003 meeting, the Development Review Committee reviewed the following project: 517 Park Circle — PUD Amendment, Subdivision, GMOS: As proposed, the burnt duplex on Park Circle will be replaced with two single - family residences. The lots are undersized for zone district. DRC COMMENTS Zoning: 517 Park Circle is located in the R -15 PUD zone district that has the following dimensional requirements: -23- Setbacks: Front Yard - 25 feet Side Yazd - 10 feet Rear Yard - 10 feet Height - 25 feet • The application packet has several errors as it relates to the dimensional requirements on Attachment B— Dimensional Requirements Form. The height limit for the R -15 zone district is 25 feet, not 28 feet. Furthermore, there-are not combined front and rear or side setback requirements for the R -15 zone district. Also, Attachment E contains two proposed building envelopes with no explanation as to which one the applicant is proposing. Finally, the terminology in the application should be "setback" and not "building envelope" as building envelopes are more restrictive and typically not applied to areas in the City except Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the gross lot area is 22,665 square feet. After the exclusion of areas with a slope greater than 20% the lot area is represented to be 19,166. There is no supporting documentation regarding the lot area after slope reduction. Further, the existing allowable and proposed FARs do not take into account slope reduction on the site. Allowable and proposed floor area as well as lot area calculations will be verified when working drawings are submitted to the Building Department for building permit review. The drawings included in the application packet do not contain adequate detail for this level of review. • Park Fee — The applicant will be required to pay a Park Dedication Impact Fee for any additional bedrooms that are added. • Residential Design Standards - Both houses will be required to comply with Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards. • Lighting Plan - Exterior lighting is required to meet Section 26.575.150 of the Land Use Code. Per that Section the applicant is required to submit a lighting plan with the PUD review. Staff feels a lighting plan, with cut sheets, can be submitted at the time of building permit submittal. Engineering: • Encroachment — An encroachment license is needed for all improvements in the ROW including the berms. • Site Distance — The building permit application must demonstrate that the berms do not obstruct the site distance for cars leaving the driveway. • Driveway - Per the City code, driveways need to be setback 10 feet from the property line. As shown, the driveway is along the property line. - 24- Water Dept: Abandon the existing tap before installing the new tap. The proposal will require two separate taps. Parks Dept: As part of the building permit, the Parks Dept needs to review the ROW landscaping and irrigation system. Fire Dept: If the proposed structures have a floor area greater than 5000 sf, sprinkler systems will be needed. Sanitation District: (i) The existing 6" tap can be used to serve both proposed dwellings but a shared service agreement will be needed. (ii) Plans should be submitted to the Sanitation District as early as possible in the design phase /DRC /517ParkCircle _ZS_ 4 4/o,r p 'al_ 1 EXHIBIT -E LOT SIZE ANALYSIS STAN ClAUSON, EXHIBIT F SETBACK ANALYSIS Planning • Urban Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management - 200 EAST MAIN STREET - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 February 4 Feb 2004 Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 FAx: 970.920.1628 E -MAIL: clauson@scaplanning.com WEE: W ..scaplanningxom Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Wagar/Detweiler PUD Requested Setback Variance Dear Scott: Attached are copies of a setback analysis we have prepared in support of this variance request. We prepared this analysis by measuring the distance between the front portion of each structure from the property line. As you can see from the analysis, there is little uniformity in the front setbacks. These vary from zero to ahnost fifty -five feet. However, a good number of these are less than ten feet, and the median setback of the nine setbacks measured is 9.9 feet. We believe that this supports the reasonableness of the request for a 10 -foot front yard setback. Moreover, this closer setback to the front will enhance the public areas and open space of the tennis and club facilities to the rear of the parcel In the case of Lot 2, the proposed 10 -foot set back allows the siting of the principal mass of the building on the plane of the street, rather than shifting it to the sloped area of the site. For these reasons, we believe that the requested front yard variance would not be inconsistent with the area generally, and would enhance the site - specific qualities of the proposed PUD. Please do not hesitate to contact me, if you have further questions about this matter. Ve truly yours, Stan i on AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl. Cc: Applicants PLANNING AND DESIGN SOLUTIONS FOR COMMUNITIES AND PRIVATE SECTOR CLIENTS R .Ar SM WagaC /Deteweiler PUD O � Setback Analysis 1 J�, flg s 1 t........ ,.I . ift giggly- i.. 501 Park Circle 15,336 sq. ft. lot 2,699 sq. ft. home y:. i EXHIBIT E LOT SIZE ANALYSIS Subject Site 11,237 sq. ft. lot 11,428 sq. ft. lot 4,200 approx. homes ; 200 Park Circle 15,271 sq. ft. lot 3,373 sq. ft. home n I . ii__ 510 Park Circle Tri -Plex 8,200 sq. ft. lot G' RV tg . i kt( 't e r R� VIN. 5. / t t i Tv, 90 "* Al s J�, flg s 1 t........ ,.I . ift giggly- i.. 501 Park Circle 15,336 sq. ft. lot 2,699 sq. ft. home y:. i EXHIBIT E LOT SIZE ANALYSIS Subject Site 11,237 sq. ft. lot 11,428 sq. ft. lot 4,200 approx. homes ; 200 Park Circle 15,271 sq. ft. lot 3,373 sq. ft. home n I . ii__ 510 Park Circle Tri -Plex 8,200 sq. ft. lot G' kt( t t Tv, J�, flg s 1 t........ ,.I . ift giggly- i.. 501 Park Circle 15,336 sq. ft. lot 2,699 sq. ft. home y:. i EXHIBIT E LOT SIZE ANALYSIS Subject Site 11,237 sq. ft. lot 11,428 sq. ft. lot 4,200 approx. homes ; 200 Park Circle 15,271 sq. ft. lot 3,373 sq. ft. home n I . ii__ 510 Park Circle Tri -Plex 8,200 sq. ft. lot G' 15 January 2004 STAN CLAusoN ASsociATEs, LLC Planning • Urban Design Landscape Architecture Transportation Studies Project Management 200 EAST [MIN STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Mr. Scott Woodford, Planner TELEPHONE: 970.925.2323 City of Aspen FAX: 970.920.1628 E-NlAm: dan@scap g.com Community Development Department WEB: w.scaplaning .com 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Lot Split and PUD Review of the Wagar/Detweiler Property, 517 Park Circle Dear Scott: On behalf of the applicants and in response to comments provided by Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer, follow DRC review, we are providing a revised Dimensional Requirements Form and site plan for the proposed lot split and PUD at 517 Park Circle. Along with this, are providing an analysis of existing slopes on the property and revised slope reduction calculations. The slope reduction analysis shows that areas of steep slopes on the proposed Lot 2 of the subdivision exceed 25% of the existing lot area. We have therefore reduced the lot area of Lot 2 by 25% for purposes of calculating allowable floor area. For purposes of clarity, we have revised the dimensional requirements form into two sheets, one for each of the lots to be created. Lot 2 has been reduced by 2,857 s.f to a lot area of 8,571 s.f for purposes of calculating floor area. After consulting with Sarah Oates regarding the appropriateness of reassigning floor area within the PUD, we have averaged the allowable floor areas of Lot 1 and Lot 2, so as to obtain an equitable distribution for both property owners. This is reflected in the allowable and proposed floor areas for each lot as shown on the two Dimensional Requirements Form sheets. The site plan has been modified to show that a variance is requested for front and north side yard setbacks on each lot. The front yard setback is proposed to be reduced from 25 feet to 10 feet. We believe that this is consistent with the front setbacks on other adjacent properties and allows for better utilization of the property. Increasing the south sideyard setback to 15' and reducing the north sideyard setback to 5 feet on both lots will allow a greater separation between Lot 2 and existing residential development, while shifting both houses slightly toward the County easement granted to the property owners on the North. This also allows for better utilization of the property. I understand that these additional variance requests will require renoticing for the public hearing. An additional change shows the existing driveway at Lot 1 being abandoned. Lot 1 will continue to take access through the easement provide by the County to Wagar. LOOECEI, Y ED shows a new curb cut that is spaced 10 feet within the property line. JAN 1 6 " M ASPEN BUILDING XPaanuctar (1n 1w1r1111cc Bain PnIUATF CFrTnQ i^IIFNTC Mr. Scott Woodford 15 January 2004 Page Two These changes should rectify the issues that were raised and allow the proposal to move forward to a public hearing before the Planning &Zoning Commission. Four copies of all documents are provided per your request. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information. Ve truly yours, Stan Clauson, AICP, ASLA STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC Encl: 1. Slope Analysis Diagram 2. Dimensional Requirements Form, 2 pages 3. Revised Site Plan, dated 13 January 2003 Cc: Applicants RECEIVED JAN 16 2004 WtnpirNenrckff `l\ STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC 4 111 Planning • Landscape Architectnm 200 East Main Street Aspen, Co 61611 (970)9252323 Fax: ( 970) 920 - 1628 -w .. swpianning .rom•info@waplanning.UW ,' 58837'09W 71.54' 17 Mxck Exbbhg _� anwe'oy to /kmaY� RACOUET CLUB l ' r BOOK 466 AT PACE 302 , r r PUD Rpusr Zoning iremenH t r Lot 1 r 11,237 J Property Co ed 4,236sf 4 floor Artw= 098sf c"t Cri Enstrq aEC7)W /A- -[ante En}ang Sam ono 6"tmg Vepetoaen V 6 9�b ^ t 2 WA q f, 8.83sf P sprom a Redac n L t 8 f p /4 a/oted nEV.' 7282 posed 10 M1 5' MS* swewtk O, 4 ro tMr 12' M Dwwwy G4s LOWE Wogor— Detweiter Property 17 Nov. 1003 1 ' Revised -13 Jon 1003 br rn m m Option Cl / c+s a0 cocA7E FOUM /5 RUM, " =30 t REC -V. 1,139' 8171VESS DUHVER � 5' wm, siJewik JAN 16 ZUU4 Attachment B -1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM — Lot 1 Project: Waaer, Detweiler PUD Amendment Subdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wasar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Surek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R -15 Lot Size: 22.665 square feet (fathering parcel) Lot Area: Lot 1= 11,237 square feet (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the lugh water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq /ft): Existing: 0 Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: 2 Proposed- Number of bedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed- Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing: 5,760 Allowable: Proposed.. 25 R duplex Proposed: Principal bldg. N/A Proposed- NSA height: Existing: 28 H Allowable: Access bldg. height: Existing. N/A Allowable: On -Site parking: Exisung: 2 Required: % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required.• % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required: Front Setback (feet): Existing: 25 Required- Rear Setback: Existing: 5 Required- Combined F/R: Existing: 30 Required: Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required- Side Setback: Existing: 80 Required.- Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required.• u 1 Not determined Proposed. 4,236 4,098 25 8 Proposed: 25 R 25 R Proposed.. 25 R 2 Proposed: Minimum of 2 N/A Proposed- NSA N/A Proposed- NSA 25 Proposed: 10 10 Proposed.• 25 35 Proposed: 35 10 Proposed- 15 10 Proposed- 5 20 Proposed. • 20 Existing non - conformities or encroachments: A small portion of the building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size in the PUD of 11,237 square feet_ a minimum front setback of ten (10) feet and a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet on the north side. RECEIVED JAN 16 2004 ASPEN R111i ^ s", - -"'' erkrr Attachment B - 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM — Lot 2 Project: Wager, Detweiler PUD Amendment Subdivision and GMQS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R -15 Lot Size: 22.665 square feet (fathering parcel)• Lot 2 = 11,428 square feet Lot Area: Lot 2 = 8,571 square feet_ with slope reduction at 25% maximum (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable (sq /ft): Existing: 0 Proposed. Number of residential units: Existing: 2 Proposed- Number of bedrooms: Existing: 10 Proposed- Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: Floor Area (sq. ft.): Existing: 5,760 Allowable. N/A Proposed.• duplex Existing: Principal bldg. Required.- N/A Proposed.• height: Existing: 28 ft Allowable: Access bldg. height: Existing.• N/A Allowable: On -Site parking: Existing: 2 Required- 0 1 2 Proposed. 3,959 4,098 25 ft Proposed.- 25 ft proposed.. 2 Proposed.- % Site coverage: EWsting.• 15 Required: N/A Proposed.• % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required.- N/A Proposed.• Front Setback (feet): Existing: 25 Required.- 25 Proposed.- Rear Setback: Existing: 5 Required.- 10 Proposed: Combined F/R: Edsfing. 30 Required.- 35 Proposed.- Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required. 10 Proposed- Side Setback: Exisfing: 80 Required- 10 Proposed.- Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required. • 20 Proposed.- 25 ft 25 ft Minimum of 2 N/A N/A 10 25 35 15 5 20 Existing non - conformities or encroachments: A small portion of the building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size for the PUD of 11,428 square feet, a minimum front setback of ten (10) feet and a minimum side yard setback of five (5) feet on the north side RECEIVED JAN 16 2004 A3Ftir !1 , R t" �f Attachment B DIMENSIONAL REQUIRE ENTS FORM Project: Wager, Detweiler PUD Amendment.. Subdivision and GMOS Exemption Applicant: Rich Wagar, Dirk Detweiler and Deborah Burek Location: 517 Park Circle Zone District: R -15 Lot Size: 22,665 square feet Lot Area: 19.166 square feet (approximately) for slope reduction (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) I - Commercial net leasable (sq /ft): Existing: 0 Proposed.• Number of residential units: Existing: 2 Proposed: Number of bedrooms: Exisfing: 10 Proposed- Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): N/A Dimensions: E 2 Not determined Floor Area (sq. ft.): Fxisting. 5,760 Allowable: 5,380 Proposed• duplex duplex Principal bldg. height: 'Existing.- 28 ft Allowable: 28 ft Proposed. Access bldg. height: Existing: N/A Allowable: 25 ft pro posed.• On -Site parking: Exisfing. 4 Required: 4 Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing: 15 Required: N/A Proposed.• % Open Space: Existing: 85 Required. • N/A Proposed.• Front Setback (feet): Existing: 25 Required: 25 Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: 5 Required.• 10 Proposed: Combined F/R: Exisfing: 30 Required: 35 Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: 0 Required: 10 Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: 80 Required.• 10 Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: 80 Required: 20 Proposed: 4,236 —Lot 1 4,249 — Lot 2 28 ft 25 ft Not ed Not determined Not determined . 25 '10 35 10 10 20 Existing non - conformities or encroachments: A small portion of the building as well as the associated landscaping encroaches into adjacent land owned by Pitkin County. Variations requested: The applicant requests a minimum lot size in the PUD of 11,237 square feet. A. d / � STAN CLAUSON ASSOCIATES, LLC ` . Planning • Landscape Awhifectnre / " 200 East Main Sheet-Aspen, Co 81611 (970)925-2323 lax: ( 970) 920 - 1628 -w ..sc planning.m- in/o@scaplammg.com , , Area o exist g house , , JM 20X —JOX slopes 898sf M 309' slopes or greater 2770sf 2770-= 3219sf 11428.83* .25= 28572 3219sf > 2857.2sf, therefore, 2590 reduction for floor area applies 0 1 grading \` I ' RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2004 ASPEN BUILDING DEPARTMENT Wogor— Detweiler Property 07 January 2004 Slope Anob�sis 1 " =30'