HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.CU.970 Powder Ln.A100-98P &Z Resolution 99 -2
Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING BOTH AN 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW AND A CONDITIONAL USE
FOR A DETACHED, ABOVE -GRADE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON LOT 6
OF THE ASPEN CHANCE SUBDIVISION, 970 POWDER LANE, CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO
Parcel No. 2737 -182 -98006
Resolution 99 -2
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Zuhair H. Fayez, owner, (represented by Willis Pember, architect) for approval of an 8040
Greenline Review and Conditional Use review for a detached garage with a 700 square foot two -
bedroom, two and one -half (2.5) bath Accessory Dwelling Unit above; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.40.090 and 26.60.040 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, an Accessory Dwelling Units may be approved as a Conditional Use by the Planning and
Zoning Commission in accordance with the requirements of said Sections; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 26.68.020 and 26.68.030 of the Aspen Municipal
Code, 8040 Greenline Reviews may be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission in
accordance with the requirements of said Sections; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department, the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District, the Engineering Department, the Parks Department, the Water Department,
and the Housing Authority reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing, which was legally noticed, was held at a regular meeting
of the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 19, 1999, at which time the Commission
received and considered public comment, and approved by a five to zero (5 -0) vote the proposed
8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use Review for the 970 Powder Lane with the
conditions recommended by the Community Development Department, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the 970 Powder Lane (Lot 6, Aspen Chance Subdivision) 8040 Greenline Review and
Conditional Use requests for a detached garage with a 700 square foot, two - bedroom, two and
one -half (2.5) bath Accessory Dwelling Unit above be approved with the following conditions:
1. The building permit application shall include:
a. A revised Improvement Survey clearly indicating that "all easements of record on Title
Policy Number , dated [within the past 12 months] are shown hereon;"
b. Housing Office verification that the net livable floor area of the Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) will be between 300 and 700 square feet, that the unit will be totally private,
have a private entrance, and have no rooms (i.e., mechanical rooms, etc.) that might need
to be accessed by people in the principle residence;
c. Housing Office verification that the ADU will contain a kitchen having a minimum of a
two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6 -cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer;
d. A copy of a signed and recorded Housing Office issued Deed Restriction for the ADU;
111111111111111111 IN IN 11111111111111111111111 IN IN
429008 03/22/1999 01:03P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI
1 of 3 R 16.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
P &Z Resolution 99 -2
Page 2 of 3
e. Clear identification of the ADU on building permit plans as a separate two- bedroom
unit, separated from the primary residence;
f. Provision of at least two (2) 8.5' x 18' on -site parking spaces for the two - bedroom ADU
indicated on the final plans;
g. Plans for the installation of any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other above
ground equipment on an easement provided by the property owner and not within the
public rights -of -way;
h. The location of any additional proposed construction, including trash facilities, in such a
way that it does not encroach into an existing utility easement or public right -of -way;
i. Working drawings to verify all height, setback, site coverage, and floor area calculations,
as well as lot size and lot area calculations;
j. A copy of an executed tap permit(s) completed at the office of the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be made prior to the
issuance of a building permit;
k. Verification that the proposed plans for the ADU will comply with all UBC requirements
including but not limited to those addressing natural light and ventilation standards, and
that the proposed plans will provide a sound attenuation wall/barrier between the ADU
and the garage located below it;
1. Building permit drawings which indicate all utility meter locations; utility meter
locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage;
and,
m. All conditions of approval, as indicated in the approved Resolution, as notes on the
building permit application plan sets.
2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), the applicant shall:
a. Submit as -built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprints,
easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering property boundaries and
any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems Department in
accordance with City GIS requirements, if and when, any exterior renovation or
remodeling of the property occurs that requires a building permit;
b. Permit Community Development Department, Engineering, and Housing Office staff to
inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval; and
c. Provide the Community Development Department with as -built drawings for keeping in
the planning case file records.
3. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from:
• The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public
rights -of -way;
• The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail
disturbances;
• The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and,
• The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way.
4. If constructed, only fifty (50) percent or 350 square feet of the ADU's floor area, whichever
is less, shall be counted toward the total allowable Floor Area on the property. Furthermore,
at least as much FAR as is created shall be decommissioned/removed.
5. The ADU structure shall be permitted to have a three (3) foot side yard setback.
6. An amended ditch maintenance agreement or a ditch relocation agreement must be executed
prior to submission of a building permit application. The ditch water flow may not be
interrupted for more than two days, and the Parks Department must be notified prior to any
interruptions of flow. The City reserves the right to a ditch maintenance easement of
adequate width for access; the location and dimensions of the easement will need to be
finalized as part of the relocation agreement.
7. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes from
the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering
Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
111111111111111111111 IIII IIIIIII HIM III 11111 IIII IIII
42SUS 03/22/1999 01:03P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI
2 of 3 R 16.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
P &Z Resolution 99 -2
Page 3 of 3
8. The applicant shall provide a roof overhang or other sufficient means of preventing snow
from falling on both the stairway leading to the door and the area in front of the door to the
ADU; sufficient means of preventing icing of the stairway is also required.
9. Prior to submitting an application for building permit, any needed tree removal permit(s)
must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is /are to be removed or
relocated (including scrub oaks of three (3) inches or greater); also, no excavation can occur
within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can occur
within this /these dripline(s). Similarly, the ski easement located above the subject property
shall not be impacted by any of this development, no construction access is permitted via the
trail, and no storage of fill or other materials is permitted within the trail easement.
10. The site development must meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Section
26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a temporary sediment
control and containment plan for the construction phase, and a drainage mitigation plan (full
size - 24" x 36 ") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State
of Colorado. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be
provided with percolation tests to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells may
not be placed within utility easements. A foundation drainage system with on -site detention
is required, must be shown on drainage plans prior to permit drawings, and must be separate
from the storm drainage system. The ADU drainage may be conveyed to existing
landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the
retention volume meet the design storm.
It. Cut depths for the garage level shall be limited to no more than ten (10) feet to minimize the
risk of construction- induced slope instability. Surface drainage shall be provided away from
the structure in all directions. Fill soils shall be evaluated for concentrations of lead or other
heavy metals at the time of excavation, and if contaminated soils are encountered they shall
be removed or capped. The foundation design shall be approved by a professional engineer
considering the observations and findings of the submitted Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical,
Inc., report (Job No. 198 753, dated November 18, 1998 and revised November 19, 1998).
12. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity having authority
to do so.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on January 19, 1999.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
'1
Davi Hoefer, Assistant City A mey
Attest: Planning and Zoning Commission:
:
ckie Lothian, Depu ' City - Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Vice Chairpers
c:W0me4nhCWP&MemosM0riw.doc
111111111111111111ININ1111111 HIM III1111111111111
429008 03/22/1999 01:03P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI
3 of 3 R 18.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
FROM: Mitch Haas, Planner /Interim Deputy Director
RE: 970 Powder Road/Fayez Conditional Use Review for a Detached Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) and 8040 Greenline Review - Public Hearing. Parcel
I.D. No. 2737 - 182 - 98006.
DATE: January 19, 1999
SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a
detached garage with a seven hundred (700) square foot, two - bedroom, two and one -half
(2.5) bathroom Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) above. The request is voluntary, and a
GMQS exemption is not being sought. Pursuant to section "G. Accessory Dwelling Unit
or Linked Pavilion" under the definition of "Floor Area," Section 26.04. 100 of the Land
Use Code, "An accessory dwelling unit separated from a principal structure by a
distance of no less than ten (10) feet with a maximum footprint offour hundred fifty (450)
square feet, shall be calculated at fifty (50) percent of allowable floor area up to seven
hundred (700) square feet of floor area." Therefore, if approved, the proposed ADU
would be entitled to an automatic FAR bonus of 350 square feet without the imposition
of mandatory occupancy on the deed restriction.
Since the proposed development would take place within 150 horizontal feet of the 8,040
foot elevation contour, 8040 Greenline Review approval is a prerequisite. The submitted
application is attached as Exhibit A, and referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District (ACSD), and the Engineering, Housing, and Parks Departments are
included as Exhibit B.
Community Development staff recommends that the 8040 Greenline Review and
Conditional Use for the detached garage and Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at 970
Powder Lane (Lot 6, Aspen Chance Subdivision) be approved with conditions.
APPLICANT: Zuhair H. Fayez (owner), represented by Willis Pember.
LOCATION: Lot 6 of the Aspen Chance Subdivision is located in the City of Aspen at 970
Powder Lane, south of Ute Avenue.
ZONING: Moderate - Density Residential/Planned Unit Development (R- 15 /PUD).
CURRENT LAND USE: Detached single - family residential.
LOT SIZE: The lot size is 27,186 square feet (0.624 acres).
ALLOWABLE FAR: The existing structures on the lot have a floor area of 7,550
square feet while the allowable FAR is 5,870 square feet. This is an existing, legally -
created nonconformity. According to the Land Use Code, owners are permitted to
maintain nonconforming situations when developing, provided the nonconformity is in
no way enlarged or expanded upon. The nonconformity is the result of the property
containing 880.5 square feet of countable FAR in decks, balconies, terraces, and patios.
If the proposed conditional use is approved, a 350 square foot FAR bonus would be
automatically granted (see "Summary," above). Under the subject proposal, including the
bonus, 554 square feet of FAR would be created (904 - 350) and the requisite amount (at
least 554 square feet) of deck, balcony, terrace, and patio space would be eliminated (see
"FAR Summary" in Exhibit A).
Note that the application (Exhibit A) represents removal, prior to replacement, of 967
square feet of existing FAR; the applicant made this proposal prior to gaining knowledge
that the proposed ADU, if approved, would be granted an automatic FAR bonus of 350
square feet. Thus staff would not hold this representation as "material' and subject to the
last recommended condition of approval; rather, staff would simply require that at least as
much FAR as is created be removed.
PROPOSED LAND USE: The lot contains an existing single - family residence and
accessory "out" buildings. The existing residence would remain as it currently exists
with the exception of the removal of some deck, balcony, terrace, and/or patio space. The
proposal calls for augmenting the property by constructing a detached building that
would contain a partially underground one -car garage with storage and a mechanical
room, along with a fully above grade two - bedroom, two and one -half (2.5) bath accessory
dwelling unit above.
REVIEW PROCEDURE: Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) require conditional use
approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. It is a one -step
review that requires notification to be published, posted and mailed in accordance with
Section 26.52.060(E). 8040 Greenline Review is a concurrent one -step process that
requires neither a public hearing, nor publishing, posting, or mailing of notification.
The following sections of the code are applicable to this review: Section 26.40.090,
Accessory Dwelling Units; Section 26.28.050, Moderate - Density Residential (R -15);
Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses; Section 26.68.030,
8040 Greenline Review; and, Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards.
The Code provides that (Section 26.58.020 (B)) "in order to proceed with additional land
use reviews or obtain a Development Order, staff shall find the submitted development
application consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines." This review has been
carried out and approved by staff.
BACKGROUND: The lot in question was created as part of the Aspen Chance
Subdivision and PUD. If approved, the current proposal would result in a detached one-
7
car garage with a two- bedroom ADU above. As required by the Code, the ADU would
contain between 300 and 700 square feet of floor area with private kitchen (two -burner
stove with oven, standard sink, and a six cubic foot refrigerator plus freezer), bathroom,
and access. The one -car garage and associated driveway would provide two (2) off -street
parking spaces. The proposed ADU would be completely voluntary as the applicant is
not seeking an exemption from the requirements of the Growth Management Quota
System.
31 RBI 41136 lu 1 0112M
Section 26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units
The provisions of Sections 26.40.090(A)(1) and 26.40.090(E) require that all ADUs
contain between 300 and 700 square feet of net livable area. The proposed unit would
contain approximately 700 square feet of net livable area. The applicant is aware that the
unit is required to be deed restricted, meeting the housing authority's guidelines for
resident occupied units and shall be limited to rental periods of not less that six (6)
months in duration. The owner of the principal residence shall retain the right to place a
qualified employee(s) of his/her choosing in the ADU. Since the unit would be above -
grade, detached from the principal residence by more than ten (10) feet, and have a
footprint of less than 450 square feet, the applicant would obtain an FAR bonus of 350
square feet (or half of the finished square footage of the unit, whichever is less), but the
housing office will not retain the right to fill the unit if left vacant. The one -car garage
and associated driveway would provide two (2) off -street parking spaces.
Section 26.40.090(A)(2) does not apply to the proposal as the unit would be detached.
Section 26.40.090(A)(3) is met because the proposal calls for placing the ADU above a
detached garage, and the property is accessed by a secondary road (Powder Lane is
reached via North Alps Place, off of Ute Avenue). Section 26.40.090(A)(4) does not
apply to this proposal as alley access is not available.
Section 26.40.090(B)(1), Development review standards for a detached accessory
dwelling unit, requires that
The proposed development be compatible with and subordinate in character to the
primary residence located on the property and with the development located within the
neighborhood, and assuming year -round occupancy, shall not create a density pattern
inconsistent with the established neighborhood
The architectural character of the proposed structure is consistent with the Subdivision
Homeowner Covenants regarding architectural standards, exterior finishes, and
previously approved colors. The exterior finishes of the proposed structure would be
identical to those of the existing house - -- dull green, stained clapboards and stone. The
massing and scale of the unit is clearly subordinate to that of the existing, main house as
well as to the massing and scale of other structures in the neighborhood.
3
I .
The proposed accessory dwelling unit is consistent with the residential use of the Aspen
Chance Subdivision. ADUs are not counted as units of density, but this unit would be
consistent with the intentions of the Subdivision as two of three employee units initially
approved for the PUD have been built on other parcels. Thus, placement of a small, deed
restricted dwelling unit within the PUD is consistent with the established pattern of use.
Section 26.40.090(B)(2), Development review standards for a detached accessory
dwelling unit, requires that
Where the proposed development varies from the dimensional requirements of the
underlying zone district, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall find that such
variation is more compatible in character with the primary residence than the
development in accord with the dimensional requirements. The following dimensional
requirements may be varied:
a. Minimum front and rear yard setbacks;
b. Minimum distance between buildings on the lot;
c. Maximum allowed floor area may be exceeded up to the bonus allowed for
accessory dwelling units;
d. The side yard setback shall be a minimum of three (3) feet ...
With the proposed layout, all dimensional requirements with the one exception of side
yard setbacks would be met. The R -15 zone district has a minimum side yard setback of
ten (10) feet, and the proposed structure would have a side yard setback of just three (3)
feet. While the above cited standard states that the side yard setback shall be a minimum
of three (3) feet and the proposal complies with this, staff interprets the standard to allow
for a three (3) foot side yard setback only if the Commission finds the variation to be
more compatible in character with the primary residence than would be development in
accord with the dimensional requirements.
As proposed, the new structure would be detached from the primary residence by
approximately twenty (20) feet. If made to comply with the ten (10) foot minimum side
yard setback of the R -15 zone, the two structures would be separated by just thirteen (13)
feet, making the driveway parking space for the ADU move in front of the existing
structure, rather than staying completely off to the side. Furthermore, in a May 15, 1989,
administrative approval of an Insubstantial PUD Amendment for the Aspen Chance
Subdivision and PUD, the following "Finding" was made:
The intent of the original PUD was to keep as much of the bulk off Ute Avenue [as
possible] and to step the building mass away from this road, toward the mountain.
By allowing the three (3) foot side yard setback for the proposed ADU structure, the
intent of the original PUD would be better maintained than it would with development in
accord with the dimensional requirements. Thus, staff recommends approval of this
variation.
Section 26.60.040, Standards Applicable to All Conditional Uses
Pursuant to Section 26.60.040, a development application for a conditional use approval
shall meet the following standards:
(A) The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the zone district in which
it is proposed to be located.
RESPONSE: The stated purpose of the R -15 zone district "is to provide areas for long-
term residential purposes with customary accessory uses." ADUs are allowed as
conditional uses in the R -15 zone district, and approval would provide an accessory
dwelling unit available for long -term residential purposes. Furthermore, one of the stated
themes of the AACP with regard to "revitalizing the permanent community" is to
"increase resident housing." Also, the proposal is consistent with the following specified
purposes, goals, objectives, and standards of the AACP:
"Promote, market and implement Cottage Infill and Accessory Dwelling Unit
programs;"
"Develop small scale resident housing which fits the character of the community and is
interspersed with free market housing throughout the Aspen Area and up valley of
Aspen Village;" and,
"The public and private sectors together should develop . . . employee- occupied
accessory dwelling units, to achieve the identified unmet need to sustain a critical mass
of residents."
(B) The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or
enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of
the parcel proposed for development.
RESPONSE: The proposed accessory dwelling unit is consistent with the residential use
of the Aspen Chance Subdivision. ADUs are not counted as units of density, but this unit
would be consistent with the intentions of the Subdivision as two of three employee units
initially approved for the PUD have been built on other parcels. Thus, placement of a
small, deed restricted dwelling unit within the PUD is consistent with the established
pattern of use.
(C) The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional
use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and
vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on
surrounding properties.
RESPONSE: The proposed building would be set at the toe of the slope, with the first
level partially below grade. According to the applicant, do to its siting, small size, and
relocation of existing plantings, the ADU would not be visible from any other property
within the PUD, Ute Avenue, or North Alps Place. Although obscured by a dense screen
of evergreens, it would be minimally visible from its immediate neighbor at Lot 7. From
the vantage point of the ski easement above the site, the density of the forest will
effectively obscure any sight lines to the new structure during all seasons. The existing
circular driveway is adequate to serve the new unit, with the creation of a new one -car
(tapers from 12' to 9' in width and runs for approximately 20' in length) driveway.
As described earlier, the size of the structure would be subordinate to the principal
residence, and the design would be compatible with the main structure as well. Like
every other residence in the Aspen Chance Subdivision, the ADU's parking and trash
service will be accessed from the street. No noise, vibration, or odor related impacts are
anticipated. The proposed ADU will operate like any other residence or ADU found in
the neighborhood. The anticipated impacts will be negligible.
(D) There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use
including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire
protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage
systems, and schools.
RESPONSE: There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the proposed uses.
See Engineering and ACSD referral comments, attached as Exhibit B.
(E) The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need
for increased employees generated by the conditional use.
RESPONSE: While the proposed development of an ADU will not generate an increase
in the employment base, the applicant will be supplying an ADU which, pursuant to
Section 26.40.090(A)(1) and (E), will be deed restricted, registered with the housing
office, and available for rental to an eligible working resident of Pitkin County for
periods of not less than six months in duration, thereby serving the need for increased
affordable housing in the City of Aspen.
(F) The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it
by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this
title.
RESPONSE: The proposed conditional uses will comply with all additional standards
imposed on it by the AACP and by all other applicable requirements of the Municipal
Code, such as those contained in Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards.
Section 26.68.030, 8040 Greenline Review
Pursuant to Section 26.68.030(A), "the provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to
all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline)
in the City of Aspen, and all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below the
8040 greenline." As the proposed development falls within 150 feet of the 8,040 foot
elevation contour and does not meet the exemption provisions of Section 26.68.030(B) of
the code, an 8040 Greenline Review is required. The applicant has provided responses to
the eleven (11) standards contained in Section 26.68.030(C), 8040 Greenline Review
Standards, of the Aspen Land Use Regulations (see Exhibit A). These eleven (11)
standards and staffs responses follow.
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for
development, considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine
subsistence and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls and avalanche dangers. If the
parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and
revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to
a location acceptable to the city.
RESPONSE: The applicant has submitted a report prepared by Hepworth - Pawlak
Geotechnical, Inc., and said report is included with the attached Exhibit A. The report
concludes that construction of the proposed structure should be feasible as planned. The
risk of major geologic hazards affecting the construction appears low and probably no
greater than that associated with the adjacent, existing residences. Staff has included a set
of recommended conditions based on the findings and suggestions of the Hepworth -
Pawlak report.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural
watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water
pollution.
RESPONSE: The proposed development would not have a significant adverse affect on
the natural watershed, nor would it cause increased runoff, drainage, soil erosion or water
pollution. Any development on the site would be required by the recommended
conditions of approval to comply with the city's "Urban Runoff Management Plan" and
the requirements of Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f) of the Municipal Code.
There is a mine drainage ditch on the property and this ditch supplies both Glory Hole
Park and the ditches in the malls. The ditch may not be relocated or in any way altered
until a written agreement (an amended ditch maintenance agreement or a ditch relocation
agreement) is entered into with the City Water Department; such an agreement will have
to be executed prior to submittal of a building permit application. The ditch water flow
may not be interrupted for more than two days, and the Parks Department must be
notified prior to any interruptions of flow. Also, the City will reserve, with this approval,
the right to a ditch maintenance easement of adequate width for access; the location and
dimensions of the easement will need to be finalized as part of the relocation agreement.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air
quality in the city.
RESPONSE: No significant impacts on air quality are anticipated as a result of the
proposed development.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible
with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
7
RESPONSE: The proposed building would be set at the toe of the slope, with the first
level partially below grade. Currently, the site of the proposed development contains a
landscaped lawn area with recently planted evergreens from 4 " -6" in diameter.
According to the applicant, do to its siting, small size, and relocation of existing
plantings, the ADU would not be visible from any other property within the PUD, Ute
Avenue, or North Alps Place. Although obscured by a dense screen of evergreens, it
would be minimally visible from its immediate neighbor at Lot 7. From the vantage
point of the ski easement (which would remain unaltered) above the site, the density of
the forest will effectively obscure any sight lines to the new structure during all seasons.
The existing circular driveway is adequate to serve the new unit, with the creation of a
new one -car driveway (tapers from 12' wide to 9' wide and runs for approximately 20' in
length) with a cut that would not exceed 24" from existing grade.
As described earlier, the size of the structure would be subordinate to the principal
residence, and the design would be compatible with the main structure as well. Like
every other residence in the Aspen Chance Subdivision, the ADU's parking and trash
service will be accessed from the street. No noise, vibration, or odor related impacts are
anticipated. The proposed ADU will operate like any other residence or ADU found in
the neighborhood. The anticipated impacts will be negligible.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain,
vegetation and natural features.
RESPONSE: Grading around the proposed structure would be minimized, and four (4)
evergreens would be relocated between the proposed structure and the existing driveway.
6 The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit
cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic
resource.
RESPONSE: Please refer to the staff responses to 8040 Greenline Review standards 4
and 5, above.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to
blend into the open character of the mountain.
RESPONSE: The height of the proposed structure would be within the twenty -five (25)
foot restriction set by the Land Use Code. A portion of the structure would be located
below grade while the bulk of the structure has been designed blend with the slope of the
hillside. Again, please refer to the staff response to 8040 Greenline Review standard 4,
above.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed
development.
RESPONSE: The ability to service the lots of the Aspen Chance Subdivision with
utilities was reviewed in depth as part of the subdivision/PUD approval. Since then, the
8
developer has supplied the building site with adequate water service. All other utilities
are sufficiently sized and the addition of an ADU will not adversely affect the ability to
serve this or other properties.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can
be properly maintained.
RESPONSE: Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development and said
roads have been and will continue to be properly maintained.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to
ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment.
RESPONSE: The site maintains adequate ingress and egress, and access for fire
protection and snow removal equipment will continue to be adequately provided with the
Powder Lane cul -de -sac fronting the property.
I1. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan:
Parks /Recreation/Open SpacelTrails Plan map is dedicated for public use. Provide
access to natural resources and areas of special interest to the community.
RESPONSE: There is an existing ski easement located above the subject property. This
trail and associated easement would not be impacted by the proposed development;
nevertheless, staff is recommending a condition of approval stating that no construction
access is permitted via the trail, and no storage of fill or other materials is allowed to
occur within the trail easement.
STAFF FINDINGS: Based upon review of the applicant's land use application and the
referral comments, Community Development staff finds that there is sufficient
information to support approval of the request, with conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Community Development staff recommends that the 8040
Greenline Review and Conditional Use requests for the proposed Accessory Dwelling
Unit at 970 Powder Lane (Lot 6, Aspen Chance Subdivision) in the City of Aspen be
approved with the following conditions:
The building permit application shall include:
a. A revised Improvement Survey indicating that the two westernmost monuments were
found or set, and clearly stating that "all easements of record as indicated on Title
Policy Number , dated [within the past 12 months] are shown hereon;"
b. Housing Office verification that the net livable floor area of the Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) will be between 300 and 700 square feet, that the unit will be totally
private, have a private entrance, and have no rooms (i.e., mechanical rooms, etc.) that
might need to be accessed by people in the principle residence;
c. Housing Office verification that the ADU will contain a kitchen having a minimum
of a two -burner stove with oven, standard sink, and a 6 -cubic foot refrigerator plus
freezer;
d. A copy of a signed and recorded Housing Office issued Deed Restriction for the
ADU;
N
e. Clear identification of the ADU on building permit plans as a separate two- bedroom
unit, separated from the primary residence;
f. Provision of at least two (2) 8.5' x 20' on -site parking spaces for the two- bedroom
ADU indicated on the final plans;
g. Plans for the installation of any new surface utilities requiring a pedestal or other
above ground equipment on an easement provided by the property owner and not
within the public rights -of -way;
h. The location of any additional proposed construction, including trash facilities, in
such a way that it does not encroach into an existing utility easement or public right -
of -way;
i. Working drawings to verify all height, setback, site coverage, and floor area
calculations, as well as lot size and lot area calculations;
j. A copy of an executed tap permit(s) completed at the office of the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District; payment of the total connection charges shall be
made prior to the issuance of a building permit;
k. Verification that the proposed plans for the ADU will comply with all UBC
requirements including but not limited to those addressing natural light and
ventilation standards, and that the proposed plans will provide a sound attenuation
wall/barrier between the ADU and the garage located below it;
1. Building permit drawings which indicate all utility meter locations; utility meter
locations must be accessible for reading and may not be obstructed by trash storage;
and,
m. All conditions of approval, as indicated in the approved Resolution, as notes on the
building permit application plan sets.
2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO), the applicant shall:
a. Submit as -built drawings of the project showing property lines, building footprints,
easements, any encroachments, entry points for utilities entering property boundaries
and any other improvements to the Aspen/Pitkin County Information Systems
Department in accordance with City GIS requirements, if and when, any exterior
renovation or remodeling of the property occurs that requires a building permit;
b. Permit Community Development Department, Engineering, and Housing Office staff
to inspect the property to determine compliance with the conditions of approval; and
c. Provide the Community Development Department with as -built drawings for keeping
in the planning case file records.
3. In the event required, the applicant must receive approval from:
• The City Engineer for design of improvements, including landscaping, within public
rights -of -way;
• The Parks Department for vegetation species, tree removal, and/or public trail
disturbances;
• The Streets Department for mailboxes and street cuts; and,
• The Community Development Department to obtain permits for any work or
development, including landscaping, within the public rights -of -way.
4. If constructed, only fifty (50) percent or 350 square feet of the ADU's floor area,
whichever is less, shall be counted toward the total allowable Floor Area on the property.
Furthermore, at least as much FAR as is created shall be decommissioned/removed.
5. The ADU structure shall be permitted to have a three (3) foot side yard setback.
6. An amended ditch maintenance agreement or a ditch relocation agreement must be
executed prior to submission of a building permit application. The ditch water flow may
not be interrupted for more than two days, and the Parks Department must be notified
prior to any interruptions of flow. The City reserves the right to a ditch maintenance
10
I
easement of adequate width for access; the location and dimensions of the easement will
need to be finalized as part of the relocation agreement.
7. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a review of any proposed minor changes
from the approvals, as set forth herein, shall be made by the Planning and Engineering
Departments, or referred back to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
8. The applicant shall provide a roof overhang or other sufficient means of preventing snow
from falling on both the stairway leading to the door and the area in front of the door to
the ADU; sufficient means of preventing icing of the stairway is also required.
9. Prior to submitting an application for building permit, any needed tree removal permit(s)
must be obtained from the Parks Department for any tree(s) that is /are to be removed or
relocated (including scrub oaks of three (3) inches or greater); also, no excavation can
occur within the dripline of the tree(s) to be preserved and no storage of fill material can
occur within this /these dripline(s). Similarly, the ski easement located above the subject
property shall not be impacted by any of this development, no construction access is
permitted via the trail, and no storage of fill or other materials is permitted within the
trail easement.
10. The site development must meet the runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at
Section 26.88.040(C)(4)(f), and the building permit application must include a temporary
sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase, and a drainage
mitigation plan (full size - 24" x 36 ") and report, both signed and stamped by an engineer
registered in the State of Colorado. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site
drainage, a soils report must be provided with percolation tests to verify the feasibility of
this type of system. Drywells may not be placed within utility easements. A foundation
drainage system with on -site detention is required, must be shown on drainage plans
prior to permit drawings, and must be separate from the storm drainage system. The
ADU drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report
demonstrates that the percolation rate and the retention volume meet the design storm.
11. Cut depths for the garage level shall be limited to no more than ten (10) feet to
minimize the risk of construction- induced slope instability. Surface drainage shall be
provided away from the structure in all directions. Fill soils shall be evaluated for
concentrations of lead or other heavy metals at the time of excavation, and if
contaminated soils are encountered they shall be removed or capped. The foundation
design shall be approved by a professional engineer considering the observations and
findings of the submitted Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., report (Job No. 198
753, dated November 18, 1998 and revised November 19, 1998).
12. All material representations made by the applicant in this application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and shall be
considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by an entity having
authority to do so.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the 8040 Greenline Review and
Conditional Use requests for the proposed, detached and above - grade, two- bedroom, two
and one -half (2.5) bath Accessory Dwelling Unit at 970 Powder Lane (Lot 6, Aspen
Chance Subdivision) in the City of Aspen with the conditions recommended in the
Community Development Department memo dated January 19, 1999."
EXHIBITS: "A" - Conditional Use Application
"B" - Referral Comments
DEC 39 98 12�51PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC P.2
Housing Office
City of AspOn /,.Pltkin County
530 East Main Street, Lower Level'
Aspen,'Colorado 81611'
(970) 920.5050
Fax: (970) 920 -5580
MEMORANDUM
TO; Mitch Haas, Community Development Dept.
FROM: Stefanie A. Levesque, Housing Office
DATE: December30,1998
RE: Fayea Group Conditional Use for an ADU — 970 Powder Road
ParceiID No. 2737. 182.98006
REQl1E$T: The applicant is requesting approval for an accessory dwelling unk to be located above an
attached garage.
BACKLiROUND; According to Section 26.40,090, Accessary Oweift Unft a unit shall contain not less '
than 800 square feet of.net livable area end not more titan 700 square feet of net livable erea.
HUES: When the Housing Office reviews plans for an accessory dwelfind unit, there are particular areas'
that are given special, attention. They are as follows:
1. The unit must be a totally private unit, which mcans.the unit must have a private entrance and there
shah 'be no other rooms .ki this unit that need to be utilized by the individuals In the principal
residence; i.e., a mechanical room for the principal residence.
2. The kitchen includes a minimum of a two - burlier stove with oven, standard sink, and a acubic furs
refrigarator plus freezer.
r .
3. The unit is required to have a certain percentage of natural light Into the unit; i.e.,.windows, sliding,
glass door, window wells, etc., especially fi the unit is located below grade. The Uniform Building
Cade requires that 10% of the floor arcs of a Link creeds to have natural light, Natural light is defined
as light which is clear and open to the sky.
4. A deed restriction MUST be recorded PRIOR to building permit approval. The deed resbiction shah
be obtained from the Housing OfAce.
RECOMMENDATION: After reviewing the appikret M the Housing Office recommends approval on the
condition that issues 1-4 above are met prior to building permit approval. Prior to C,O. the Hous'vug.Office
requires a site•tour to inspect the unit.
V4Wm9mdn195,a4u
MEMORANDUM
To: Mitch Haas, Planner
Thm: Nick Adeh, City Engine
From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer (2 If
Date: December 28, 1998
Re: 970 Powder Road Conditional Use for an Accessory Dwelling Unit and 8040 Greenline
Review
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their December
16, 1998 meeting, and we have the following comments:
General - These comments are based on the fact that we believe that the site plan can work. The wording
must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering
Department. This is to halt complaints related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit."
1. Improvement Survey - The improvement survey does not indicate if the two westemmost
monuments were found or set. The improvement survey also lacks acceptable information concerning
easements. The revised improvement survey must clearly state that "all easement of record as indicated
on Title Policy Number , dated [within past 12 months] are shown hereon." There is
apparently at least a ski easement that was not shown. These revisions must be incorporated prior to
acceptance of a building permit application
2. Site Drainane - The existing City storm drainage infrastructure system is does not have additional
capacity to convey increased storm runoff. The site development approvals must include the requirement
of meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.88.040.C.4.f and a requirement that
the building permit application include a drainage mitigation plan (24 "06" size plan sheet or on the lot
grading plan) and a report signed and stamped by an engineer registered in the State of Colorado,
submitted as part of the building and site plan, as well as a temporary sediment control and containment
plan for the construction phase. If dywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report
must be provided with percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type system. Drywells may not be
placed within utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage,
must be detained on site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to permit drawings. The ADU
drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the
percolation rate and the retention volume meet the design storm.
3. Parks Department - The application is lacking information about existing vegetation that may be
impacted by proposed development. It is recommended that the applicant begin the tree removal permit
I
process before going to P & Z. There is a mine drainage ditch on the property which supplies Glory Hole
Park and the malls. The ditch may not be altered until a written agreement is entered with the City Water
Department. The ditch water flow may not be interrupted for more than two days, and the Parks
Department must be notified prior to any interruptions of flow. Both the Parks Department and the Water
Department will provide separate review memos to the planner.
4. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District - The separate ADU building will require a separate 4"
service line.
5. Housing Authoritv - The project provides good light to the ADU. Because the ADU is detached, the
applicant is entitled to an FAR bonus.
6. Work in the Public Right -of -way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920 -5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920 -5120) for
vegetation species and for public trail disturbance, and streets department (920 -5130) for mailboxes ,
street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within
public rights -of -way from the city community development department.
DRC Attendees
Staff: Mitch Haas, Stephanie Levesque, Tom Bracewell, Rebecca Schickling, Chuck Roth
Applicant's representative: Willis Pember
98M197
Memorandum
TO: Mitch Haas, Community Development Planner
FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Parks Director
DATE: December 22,1998
RE: 970 Powder Road: Conditional Use for an ADU and 8040 Greenline
CC: Phil Overyender, Water Director
Chuck Roth, Engineering Department
We have reviewed the submitted application and offer the following comments.
Neither the survey nor any subsequent drawings show any vegetation that exists on the
property or may be impacted by the development. We recommend that a Landscape
Plan showing existing and proposed conditions, be supplied as soon as possible in case
there are any large or significant trees that will be required to be protected by design or
protected during the construction project.
The ski easement located above the property must not be impacted by any of this
development. No construction access is permitted via the trail or storage of fill or
materials is allowed to occur within the trail easement.
The final comment on the application is in regard to the artesian well and the Durant
Mine Ditch. The City of Aspen has an adjudicated water right on the Durant Mine;
however, the City does not perform any ditch maintenance until the ditch reaches Ute
Ave. As per the comments submitted by Phil Overyender of the Water Department, an
amended ditch maintenance agreement or a ditch relocation agreement will be
necessary prior to submission of the building permit application. The City reserves the
right to a ditch maintenance easement, which will need to be finalized as part of the
relocation agreement and with adequate width for access.
�spen``vonsof dafeo�c�anif¢fion �r�zrr'cf
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tcle. (970) 925 -3601
Sy Kelly Chairman
Paul Smith Treas.
Louis Popish Secy.
December 11, 1998
Mitch Haas
Community Development
130 S. Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: 970 Powder Run ADU
Dear Mitch:
FAX #(970) 925 -2537
Michael Kelly
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
RECEIVED
ULU 1 4 1998
ASPEN/ rq i KIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
The existing residential unit on the property is currently connected to the public system by a
private collection system that serves the subdivision. The addition an ADU will not adversely
effect our ability to continue to serve. The proposed ADU should be connected by a separate four
inch service line. The applicant should contact the district's line superintendent for more
information.
Service from the district is contingent upon compliance with the district's rules, regulations, and
specifications which are on file at the district office. Fees for the project can be estimated once
detailed plans are available and a tap permit is completed at our office. We would request that a
tap permit be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Sincerely,
!&, i -k\" K1 �. b-
Bruce Matherly
District Manager.
EPA Awards of Excellence
1976. 1986.1990
Regional and National
I
P� ve�reyner, ��c63 .- M-2/14J9$�7—w Roams Referral J
X- Sender: philo @water
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 15:03:55 -0700
To: mitchh @ci.aspen.co.us
From: Phil Overeynder <philo @ci.aspen.co.us > WA%V.Ve1.
Subject: 970 Powder Road Referral
Cc: ross @ci.aspen.co.us, nicka @ci.aspen.co.us, janicev @ci.aspen.co.us,
AandCCFC @aol.com
Mitch,
I won't be able to attend the Weds DRC meeting so I am providing comments
on
this one early.
This project appears to propose to relocate one of the laterals to the
Durant Mine Ditch. The City holds rights to this ditch and has an agreement
with the Aspen Chance Subdivision for ditch maintenance. The proposed ADU
appears to be located where the existing ditch lateral crosses Lot 6. There
is no specific plan addressing relocation of the ditch although Exhibit AA
appears to show a new alignment for the ditch as it crosses the site for
the
proposed ADU. If this the proposed alignment, it does not leave adequate
room for ditch maintenance between the steep slope to the south of the ADU
and the proposed construction.
If the ditch is to be relocated, the ditch maintenance agreement will need
to e amended or a ditch relocation agreemen t will be necessar . In either
case a equate room will nee to e rove ed for maintenance of the ditch b
rove in an easement. The width of the easement would be dependent on site
con itions and the equipment access needs tor --t is site.
Please feel free to call me at x 5111 if you have any questions regarding
our comments. Thanks,
Phil
�rin� or itc aas <mitclzfi�aspen.co.us> ��
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 970 POWDER LANE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January
19, 1999 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to
consider an application submitted by Willis Pember, architect, on behalf of Zuhair H.
Fayez (owner), of 777 29th Street, Suite 202, Boulder, Colorado, 80303. The applicant is
requesting approval to construct a 700 square foot accessory dwelling unit above a
proposed detached garage. Although not part of the public hearing, the application will
also require 8040 Greenline Review since the proposed development would take place
within 150 horizontal feet of the 8,040 foot elevation contour. The property is located at
970 Powder Lane, and is legally described as Lot 6, Aspen Chance Subdivision. For
further information, contact Mitch Haas at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO (970) 920 -5095.
s/Jasmine Tyere, Interim Chair
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
published in the Aspen Times on January 2, 1999.
City of Aspen Account
�S ..eMyylpA
/ 1 �
uiti It. n uiusnavion � �I
SIGNMAKERS
(�Opn-►oljAL- 4vt?- M3
d'W--LW� 1-901T
q 4D VO W bfTL C tf.� b f 1031 (o �F,�� C 4tkl fCte
S06a,l, -Ykc�
Art, M rTv, � Q Ms; F 3 Paco
-P 1�PAJb DP-r, / r� �
To q7O PDc�aQs
AN 1) ®wOOZ- '- 4e PMP6" AT Oom S. ALPO
� �b%D (/CD FIBT 71 FAZS I
1 j4�SV� fro �h T�tU TO AQ -AL>o
of- q.0o� AjpcnoE A •P�zv�� ��lT��h1�D �4214t
rrs "oi- L�d- ijuttU) �r2v -�i�uk
J4,Aue 24 W. Per � 1ao+L O-om/Jv
e,C , :FA) "t R- f-Ay E-P
W I LU S P�iYI $1; aL
JAN 1 2 1999
TeE Ctrr of Asrrr+
Parks Office
920 -5120
TRLE R1rMOVAL PERNiTr APPLICATION
The following is an outline to assist in the preparation of a tree removal permit_
1) Outline/Sketch/Dmwing of property to include: (please attach 2 copies)
a) Property address.
b) property boundaries.
c) Locations of buildings on the property.
d) Location, diameter, and species of trees on property and designate ,
with arrows or circles which trees are to be removed.. Mo;?� 11 ".e 17
2) Site address
q7Q �fjV(/ ;� Lilo) ii�asV
3) List trees to be removed, species and diameter at 4.5' above grade.
7112, ajA
z14
4) Reason for Removal �jGT /ON5
NWiv : :;;7 e kr
5) Mitigation Plan (relocation of b= or replacement of comparable worth trees as
referenced in Aspen Municipal Code Sec, 13 -76, (e))- Add to Property Drawing.
a) Location of replacement/relocation trees.
b) Size and species of aces to be replaced-
6) Completion Date of project I i- 2 Lf - Q 9
7) Person responsible for project (applicant):
Pmp(Yt 5TN 5T- 5v ;7`6 202
2v7 7cp 80303
Address& Phone Number
��h03)
NLZ Cow`S rZc ) 23
Signature
Name of Architect or Const vetion Reprrseatarive
2 Companyname Phone Plumber- t'4'\ I 2Q t. 1 Z 1 Z
S Signer >
The following is to be complx •1 by the City of Aspen Parks Department.
4-
Property /Tree Inspection:
CA 9
— inpected -by Date Signature Date
Comments:
Permit for tree transplant only is approved. Transplants will occur on site as
designated on approved site plan. Applicant is responsible for tree survival for two
years. If any tree fails within two years, applicant will pay the full mitigation value
of the tree.
Transplant shall occur by a combination of spade moving and hand digging. If there
are any changes to the transplanting plan, applicant will notify the City Forester.
All existing trees which are to remain in place on site shall be afforded adequate
protection including no excavation, storage of materials, or any other activities
within their driplines.
All conditions of permit shall be inspected.
Accepted / Denied
Stephen Ellsperman
Forester and Natural Resource Specialist, City of Aspen Signature Date
Permit Valid for one year after completion date of project (line 6).
0
I—i
c
as u do vuvI iapm0J 0 L a
U z 1AIpgny aouvya uad,v '9m I o I
1 0 1 1 u n e u 1 1,1 e m a /. 1 a o a 0 0 y
Aati 33N3aIS38 Z3AVJ
�O\
'g o-
,\ J1
W
w
o
Z
,0'8
co
W �
W Q
O
O
C`7
0
0o ,-b'81
`?sue
v
z
0
v
E --
ED
.�O C
20
�V
C
T
�c <
Q
� Q
® W'r ;R
IN ► ,�.
N
O
Jm
N
V'
O
a
J
5�
�r
�0
U _
Z
V)
F a
U
W z
F
I
U •
a�
w
m
w i
a
J a
J
3
r
f
L
C
o
w
CA
U
O
z�
Q
w
� o
Q �
V'
O
a
J
5�
�r
�0
U _
Z
V)
F a
U
W z
F
I
U •
a�
w
m
w i
a
J a
J
3
r
f
L
C
. as v9dIV 0 u 1 I9 DM0d 0 Z 8 .
u0191AICQn9 0 0uIV0 uodIv 'B/ 101
,oi Ilun dui l;I•Ma 6, o..aoy
A ,
nad 33N3aIS38 Z3 Add
I
O
O
'Q
O
O
r
J
W
M
rl1ig
_ Im
1
I 1\ o
I 1
I �1
I
r�[ I
I I
� I �
1
I
I
/s
I
I
' I
_ I
11
U
Z .
N
f o
U �
W Y
f
U �
¢ r
¢f
W
0 �
W
a�
a ;
0
J
3
MH
zlZ
h
Z
O
N
r
MH
zlZ
h
Z
irij I,al!i
III AI I�I�pI.
IIII III
F1
City of Aspen
SE _
Mlvmm
ON
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
LAND USE APPLICATION
IN, .,s
Name: Fayez Residence ADU
Location: 970 Powder Lane, Lot #6, Aspen Chance Subdivision, Aspen, CO
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
Name: Zuhair H. Fayez
Address: 777 29th Street, Suite 202 Boulder, CO 80303
Phone #: 303 443 3902
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: Willis Pef`inber
Address: 412 North Mill Street, Aspen, CO 81611
Phone #: 970.920.1727
I rrt Ur F t t'L1L A i tvrv: Wtease cnecx an mat appty)
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
Legally created non - conforming Single family residence, with (2) small accessory buildings.
Landscaped yard containing lawn, small evergreens, terraces, decks, and water feature.
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Proposed ADU with no net FAR change. (2) accessory buildings and existing above grade decks will be
decommissioned. New below grade single car garage and mechanical with 700 net livable ADU above.
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 14 (00. 00
❑ Pre - Application Conference Summary
n Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
❑ Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form
F-] Response to Attachment 93, Minimum Submission Contents
(] Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents
[-] Response to Attachment 45, Review Standards for Your Application
Conditional Use
0
Conceptual PUD
0
Conceptual Historic Devt.
0
Special Review
0
Final PUD (& PUD Amendment)
0
Final Historic Development
0
Design Review Appeal
0
Conceptual SPA
0
Minor Historic Devt.
0
GMQS Allotment
0
Final SPA (& SPA Amendment)
0
Historic Demolition
0
GMQS Exemption
0
Subdivision
0
Historic Designation
59
ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream
0
Subdivision Exemption (includes
0
Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff,
condominiumization)
Expansion
Mountain View Plane
❑
Lot Split
0
Temporary Use
0
Other:
❑
Lot Line Adjustment
0
Text/Map Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
Legally created non - conforming Single family residence, with (2) small accessory buildings.
Landscaped yard containing lawn, small evergreens, terraces, decks, and water feature.
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Proposed ADU with no net FAR change. (2) accessory buildings and existing above grade decks will be
decommissioned. New below grade single car garage and mechanical with 700 net livable ADU above.
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ 14 (00. 00
❑ Pre - Application Conference Summary
n Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
❑ Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form
F-] Response to Attachment 93, Minimum Submission Contents
(] Response to Attachment #4, Specific Submission Contents
[-] Response to Attachment 45, Review Standards for Your Application
PLANNER:
PROJECT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
Mitch Haas, 920 -5095
DATE: 10/7/98
970 Powder Lane (Lot 6, Chance Subdivision/PUD) Conditional Use Review for an
ADU, 8040 Greenline Review, and Residential Design Standards Review
Willis Pember - -- 920 -1727
Conditional Use Review for an ADU, 8040 Greenline Review, and Residential
Design Review
DESCRIPTION: Applicant would like to construct an above - grade, detached structure with a garage, storage,
and mechanical space on the ground level, and a voluntary Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on the second
story. The property in question has a gross area of approximately 27,186 square feet and is zoned R -15,
Moderate Density Residential, with a PUD Overlay. As the proposed development would be located
within 150 vertical feet of the 8040 elevation contour, an 8040 Greenline Review is required. Similarly,
since ADUs are permitted only as conditional uses in the R -15 zone district, the proposal would be subject
to Conditional Use review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The proposal would also be subject
to review under the Residential Design Standards. The three necessary reviews can occur concurrently,
with the 8040 Greenline and Conditional Use reviews culminating in a combined public hearing before the
Planning and Zoning Commission. The Residential Design Review would be carried out by Community
Development Department staff; however, if any variances are to be necessary or requested, the applicant
shall have the choice (one or the other, but in no case both) of having the Commission hear the variance
request(s) at the same public hearing as the other requests, or opting instead to have the Design Review
Appeal Committee decide upon the variance request(s).
Land Use Code Section(s)
Chapter 26.60, Conditional Uses;
Section 26.40.090, Accessory Dwelling Units;
Section 26.28.050, Moderate - Density Residential (R -15);
Section 26.68.030, 8040 Greenline Review; and,
Section 26.58.040, Residential Design Standards.
Also see:
Chapter 26.44, Park Development Impact Fee; and,
Chapter 26.52, Common Development Review Procedures.
Review by: Community Development Department and City of Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Public Hearing: Yes, the conditional use review requires a public hearing, and the notice requirements
outlined in Chapter 26.52 will have to be followed. 8040 Greenline Review requires only
a public meeting (not hearing), but when combined with a public review, must also be
Referral Agencies:
Planning Fees:
Referral Agency Fees:
Total Deposit:
included in the notice. Residential Design Variances can only be granted at a public
hearing.
Engineering, Housing, Parks, Zoning, Fire Marshal, ACSD, Water, Electric, Building,
and Streets.
Planrl ng Deposit ($1080) -- this covers 6 hours of staff time @ $180/hr. - -- fewer or
additional hours will be refunded or billed, as applicable, at this rate)
Engineering, Minor ($110); and, Housing, Minor ($70).
$1260.
TO apply, submit the following information: (Also see Section 26.52.030, Application and Fees)
1. Proof of ownership
2. Signed fee agreement
3. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
4. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a
current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado,
listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and
agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development
Application.
5. Total deposit for review of the application) z °
6. 22 Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ +5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1 /ea.; Planning Staff = 2
7. An 8 1/2" by 11" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
8. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all
easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the
state of Colorado.
9. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form describing how
the proposed development complies with each of the review standards relevant to the develop(nnent
application. Please include and clearly indicate existing conditions as well as proposed. ft- F{f rS ti's
10. For Residential Proposals (Ord. 30): d -f� A1Cu5ElJ P.c is>
a) Neighborhood block plan at I"=50' (available from City Engineering Department)
Graphically show the front portions of all existing buildings on both sides of the block and their
setback from the street in feet. Identify parking and front entry for each building and locate any
accessory dwelling units along the alley. Indicate whether any portions of the houses
immediately adjacent to the subject parcel are one.story (only one living level).
b) Site plan at 1" = *. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed,
and footprints of adjacent buildings for a distance of 100' from the side property lines. Show
topography of the subject site with 2' contours.
c) All building elevations at 1/8" = 1' -0.
d) Floor plans, roof plan, and elevations as needed to verify that the project meets or does not
meet the "Primary Mass" standard.
e) Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on both sides of the block,
including present condition of the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation
board.
11. List of the names and addresses of all adjacent property owners within 300', exclusive of public rights -of-
way, for public hearings.
12. Copies of prior approvals.
13. All other materials required pursuant to the submittal requirements packets, including a SITE PLAN
showing the entire property as well as all proposed improvements and their locations on the site.
14. It will be necessary to indicate in the written materials submitted pursuant to number 9, above, whether or
not you are seeking to obtain an FAR bonus for the ADU, and to clearly indicate the net livable and gross
square footages of the proposed ADU.
In the event that you should have `any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact Mitch
Haas of the Community Development Department at 920 -5095.
* The foregoing summary is advisory only and is not binding on the City. The opinions contained herein are
based on current zoning and regulations, which are subject to change in the future, and upon factual
representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not, in any way, create a legal or vested
right. k
ASPEN/PITfUiCOMMUNTTY DEVELOPMENT I)Etw RTMFNT
AVeement for PAyment of City of Aspea Development Application Fees
(Please Print Clearly)
CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and - _ Z,,hair H Faye
( hereinaRer APPLICANT1) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Conditional lc . Review, ADU,
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996)
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,
4
3. APPLICANT and Cfl'Y 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 to allow
APPLICANT to make payment of an Initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be
billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. 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 APPLICANTS application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or prascnt 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
approval, 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, APPLICANI'shall pay an
initial deposit in the amount of $ 1.26t1 which is for6 hours of Planning staff time, and it'
actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT sbail pay additional monthly billings
to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including
post approval review. 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.
CITY ON ASPEN APPLICANT
Stan Clauson
Community Development Director
City of Aspen
Signature:
Date:
Printed Name: r
Mailing Address:
777 29th StrPat Cnitt+ 7(12
:, • :•
Project:
Applicant:.
Location:
Zone - District:
ATTACHMENT 2
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
F 16-Y E.Z 12-EA7 l tbg.H GI✓ A. 17, V
7Z VH+sifz.- H, F/yvE�L
°1-70 POwr.7EG- L&HE, L07 *t Co A1+7PCH GHAF -+GE SVt" I
0
Lot Area: 1.1 /A -- rvt E�iT,Ar31-15HF_v F,& P. C) G.0
(for the purposes of calculating Moor Area, Lot Area may be reduced Tor 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: Existing: H /+d Proposed: N /•d
Number of residential units: Existing: I Proposed: 2
Number of bedrooms: Existing: 5 Proposed: 7
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): y —
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing: 7. 5 5 o Allowable: 5, S 70 Proposed: 7.4 8 7 4- CP 3. i
Principal bldg. height:
Existing:
2l,-715'
Allowable: 2--�'
Proposed: _ HOC Hl- tiaF
Access. bldg. height:
Existing:
12'
Allowable: 2 s'
Pro osed: Z5'
V'
On -Site parking:
% Site coverage:
Existing:
Hovy
Existing:
!o
i G %
Required: E
HoV49
Required: —
.0
Proposed: I.
A,!P..U,
Proposed: 10,'
% Open Space: Existing: 8 4 %a Required:
—
Proposed: ,L °/o
Front Setback: -Existin : 1 3' Required
ove E'
lo
Proposed:2 2 5'
-
H
Rear Setback: Existin B• 12' Required.-'
_.. -_
I o'
A.b,V,
Proposed.? A 2'
HOVZ� ' 9
Combined F/R: Existing: 21.31 Required.
2,9'
t. t" 2
Proposed.' Col
Side Setback: Existing: 42 • -7 Required
{-long
I o'
Proposed: "o 9"
iJ, V, UCc
Side Setback: Existing .• 06, 9 ' Required."
1 O'
,6.
Proposed• 2 3 S.
HaVarE
Combined Sides: Existin : 112Q .5 Required!
2 0 '
PP•v.0
Proposed: 2 S4 , S '
J. P <, T+' E R P, V, P,
2, .dpi PER UNDE RL -YIN 011 O1-4 E.
iZ - I�i
Existing non - conformities oI encroachments:... H I C GH r3atz' <+
T MA47 H GAtZP G F 1
iZ6,Pit YPn-b 'D ETI3PcK 0 E14 laiTIwc- old L"i'C
T 0
rAt- Pptt- - -
LECr,aLLy Cp- E,aTED h-(pI- I- COHFOWMING
5"Tr- UC-TVRE,
Variations requested: __ego H 4= C]5t (�
.. O
ca c
L y
U a O
I_■MUNI
m
m
0
m
°o m
_ `
c
0
o
a
a
i
3
U
S
❑
❑
N
I�
M
�
N
x
m
m
.. O
ca c
L y
U a O
I_■MUNI
m
m
0
m
°o m
_ `
c
0
o
a
i
>
U
S
❑
❑
®
❑ ❑❑
N
x
m
m
`
E
NN m
Q
`K' m c
m
0
m
n
o
®❑❑❑❑❑❑❑
m
m
2
CD
m
0
o m m
O
N_
7i
a
i
r U m
N
i
mm ■ ■ ■ ►l�01
d
E o
o
c
CD
to cl
awa
3
0
3
.`d
W
0
2uhair H. Fayez
October 22, 1998
Mitch Haas
Aspen Pitkin County Community Development
130 Sguth Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
United States of America
Re: Authorization for Representation and Submission
Dear Mitch,
Please accept this letter as authorization for
Willis Pember
Willis Pember Architects, Inc.
412 N. Mill St., Aspen, CO
970.920.1727 voice
to submit a land use application on behalf of me, Zuhair H.
Fayez and to represent me in the land use review process for a
Conditional Use Review for an ADU, 8040 Greenline Review,
and Residential Design Review.
If you require anything further, please advise.
Very truly yours,
Fayez Properties
777 - 29`h Street, Suite 202
Boulder, CO 80303
303.443.3902
P.O. Box 5445 Jcdd..rh 21422 rot: 6547111 Fax: 6543430 1 otm r,'- s`A I:tl I \i•+ %L. V tY 2z- 6tt6+ -61 "'-
352125 8 -783 P -304 06/13/95 Qo WaP PG 1 OF 1
SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CLERK 8 RECORDER
SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
a
o1H
HO
.j [1
OI
H. 0. MYERS
whose Mm.tiis 2476 Bollsover, Suite 610, Houston,
Texas 77005.-C,,0r,;yF
lRLiCffir4r_- , fur the consideration
or Ten and no /100 ($10.00) dullan.
in hand paid, hereby sells) and mnvcy(s) to ZUHAIR H. FAYEZ
REC DOC N
5.00 390.Oklx'
whose legal address is P.O. Box 5445, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 21422
. E'amb'oF —.- mM- Slatel+F
le following real property in the - County of Pitkin
and State of Colorado, to wit:
LOT 6, according to the Plat of the RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 4, 5 AND 6
INTO LOTS 5 AND 6 of the Amended Plat of ASPEN CHANCE SUBDIVISION,
recorded November 9, 1989 in Plat Book 23 at Page 55 as Reception No.
317001,
also known as street and number 970 Powder Lane, Aspen, CO 31611
with all its appurtenances and wamnll((1s) the title against all persons claiming under (mc)-tvs)-
delivered Signed and this n y day of June 1995
H.O. Myers
STATE OF COLORADO. l
County of
Pitkin }a9.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this IBA day of June i
19 95 , by H.O. Myers.
My commission expires I ad . 1949 . Witnec, my hand
9f in Ikm t, inxn "City run.•.
No. 900. itcv.6�66. ae[cut. wsatlnxry of2a (xwn'.,m� a,.awa waf.n�•e�lxnw an nw..
mil
M
1 (J
0 N
x N
TN
s
d
n
v
d
Y
M
v
nn
M
n
e
P
w
(A
N
m
311,
ig
i'
O
3 i � ♦q y
P�
;j
s
11
a
�o
y
``a
dy
a
a
Y
E
E
/ }d
a
Y
[ Y •
O
3 y
�
I8
E
x
�
w i
f
I.rS
.�) •r>
V 9
ri
d
x
•
./ 4
5
j
``a
0
FAR Summary
Fayez Residence ADU
970 Powder Lane
Aspen, CO 81611
Project Description
11.16.98
This proposals seeks to decommision 967 of legally created existing FAR in order to
create approximately 904 of replacement FAR. The difference is a 63 SF net decrease
of FAR.
The project seeks to work within the limits of the non - conformity. Moreover, the
proposal seeks to mitigate the non - conformity, although not required to do so, by
reducing the total FAR of the site by a small amount.
Additionally, FAR credits made available for above grade ADU's are not sought.
FAR Decommisioned
1. Existing above grade Accessory Buildings demolished
Mechanical Bldg
+ Wood Shed
net FAR
128.5
2. Existing exterior above grade Decks demolished and rebuilt on grade.
net FAR
Total FAR Decommisioned 967
New Construction
1. ADU FAR 700
net Liveable 700
ADU gross sq ft 750
2. Partially underground
garage, storage, mechanical room
gross sq ft
378 Sq Ft
54 % perimeter wall exposed x 378 =
net FAR 204
Total Replacement FAR 904
Net FAR Difference - 63 FAR
FAR Summary
Fayez Residence ADU
970 Powder Lane
Aspen, CO 81611
Sq• Ft.
Principal Building
1. Lower Level
3,278
2. Upper Level
2,504
3. Loft
665
4. Garage
511
subtotal
6,958
Decks, Terraces, Balconies
and
Patios
5. Lower Level Wood Deck
725
(above Grade)
6. Upper Level Wood Deck
200
(above Grade)
7. Upper Level Balcony
794
(Second Floor)
subtotal
1,719
Accessory Buildings
8. Mechanical Building
84.5
9. Wood Shed
44
subtotal
128.5
TOTAL FAR
FAR
3,278
2,504
665
136
6,583
MM
128.5
7,550
Notes:
1. 250 SF of garage space is exempt from FAR calculations. Additional
250 SF counted as .5 FAR.
2. > 15% allowable floor area in decks, balconies, terraces and patios is
added FAR. e.g. 15% of 5,870 = 880.5.
11.16.98
Exempt
375 t
15% x Allowable FAR
= 880.5 2
r-
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-L_
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
FAR Summary
Fayez Residence ADU
970 Powder Lane
Aspen, CO 81611
Mr
'1Fa✓
11.16.98
5'
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- r
I
Upper Level Plan 1/8-',f = 1 ' -0"
Fayez Residence ADU
Zone District R -15
Lot #6 Aspen - Chance Subdivision
970 Powder lane, Aspen, CO
Lot Size 27,186 SF
Response to Attachment 4
Review Standards: Conditional Use Review
11.16.98
A. The proposed voluntary ADU is an infill project within the city limits that
contributes a unit of Deed Restricted Affordable housing to a qualified working
resident of Pitkin County and is therefore consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
B. The proposed dwelling unit is consistent with the residential use of the PUD. The
ADU is not considered a unit of density, yet is consistent with the intentions of the
Subdivision, as two of three employee units, initially approved for the PUD, have been
built. In other words, the idea of a small dwelling unit within the PUD is already an
established pattern of use.
C. The proposed dwelling unit results in no net increase of FAR to the property, and
by virtue of its siting, small size, and relocation of existing plantings, is not visible from
any other property within the PUD, Ute Avenue, or North Alps Place. It is minimally
visible from its immediate neighbor, Lot #7, although obscured by a screen of dense
evergreens.
From the vantage point of the ski easement above the site, the density of the
forest obscures any sitelines to the proposal during all seasons.
The existing circular drive is adequate to serve the new unit, with the minimal
creation of new driveway.
D. The existing public facilities and services are adequate to serve the needs of a two
bedroom, two bath, 700 SF ADU.
E. Yes, the applicant commits to affordable housing, see A. above. The proposal seeks
to provide an unit of deed restricted housing and does not, by definition, generate the
need for more employees as part of the conditional use permit.
F. Yes, the proposed conditional use complies with additional standards imposed by
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this
chapter.
Fayez Residence ADU 11.16.98
Zone District R -15
Lot #6 Aspen - Chance Subdivision
970 Powder lane, Aspen, CO
Lot Size 27,186 SF
Response to Attachment 5
Review Standards: Development of an ADU
1. The proposed dwelling unit is consistent with the residential use of the PUD. The
ADU is not considered a unit of density, yet is consistent with the intentions of the
Subdivision, as two of three employee units, initially approved for the PUD, have been
built on other parcels. In other words, the idea of a small dwelling unit within the
PUD is already an established pattern of use.
The architectural character of the proposed unit is consistent with the
Subdivision Homeowner Covenants regarding architectural standards, exterior finishes
and previously approved colors. The exterior finishes of the proposed unit are
identical to the existing house -- dull green stained clapboards and stone.
The Chairman of the Homeowner's Association, the immediate neighbor to
the West of Lot #6, as well as the Board of the Homeowner's Association as a whole,
have given verbal approval of the project.
The massing and scale of the unit is clearly subordinate to the existing, main
house. See attached Elevation drawings E, F, G, and D, Site Section SK1, model and
site photographs.
2. The dimensional requirements either meet or exceed the underlying zone district.
see attachment 2, Dimensional Requirements Form.
a.) 25' -0" front yard, rear yard n /a.
W Minimum distance between buildings on the lot is 11' -0 "; -- 10' -0" is
required.
c.) No FAR bonus applied for.
d.) Side yard setback is 3' -0" as per Attachment 5, ADU Review
Standards, item 2d.
e.) n/a
f.) Maximum Allowable site coverage is 2 %; -- 5% is allowable
g.) n /a, the proposal is not on a historic landmark or a historic overlay
district.
3. n/a
4. see response to attachment #4
Fayez Residence ADU 11.16.98
Zone District R -15
Lot #6 Aspen - Chance Subdivision
970 Powder lane, Aspen, CO
Lot Size 27,186 SF
Response to Attachment 4
Review Standards: 8040 Greenline Review (26.68.040)
1. Slope, ground stability, mine subsidence, rock falls, avalanche danger, and soil
toxicity is reviewed in the attached Geotechnical report by Hepworth - Pawlak
Geotechnical, Inc.
2. The proposed roof area, 750 SF, replaces an aggregate roof area of 130 sf of existing
accessory buildings equaling a net of 620 sf of new roof area. The proposed extension
of the existing drive creates no new paving; the existing stone terrace will be converted
to new driveway.
The roof geometry proposed allows for maximum evaporation of snowfall,
minimizing runoff and catastrophic roof slides, by holding snow on relatively low
pitched roofs.
The Durant mine opening is within 300' of the property and is the source of
an artesian well. From the well head, the water is first utilized by Lot #7 as an
ornamental water feature. The flow leaves the property via an underground 4" PVC
pipe and reemerges on Lot #6. The development proposes a minor rerouting of the
PVC around the south side of the new structure within the property. The flow, from
the mine opening on Lot #7, to where it exits Lot #6, is wholly on, or under, existing
lawn, and will remain so, as part of the proposal.
3. No known increase in air pollution will result as a consequence of the
development.
4. The proposed development is sited on an existing landscaped lawn, containing
recently planted evergreens from 4 " -6" in diameter. The driveway extension follows
the existing grade within 24" as required by current Land Use Code. (see 'Yard'
definition, A7.)
5. Grading around the proposed structure will be minimal and maintained as is
existing. Four immature evergreens will be relocated between the structure and
existing driveway.
Fayez Residence ADU 11.16.98
Zone District R -15
Lot #6 Aspen - Chance Subdivision
970 Powder lane, Aspen, CO
Lot Size 27,186 SF
Response to Attachment 4 (continued)
Review Standards: 8040 Greenline Review (26.68.040)
6. The massing, scale, and overall height of the project is significantly less than
allowed; see Elevation drawings, E, F, G, D and Site Section, SKI. The reduced overall
height of the structure diminishes the visual cut -off of the mountain view plane from
below to the extent that the structure is even seen.
The proposed dwelling unit, by virtue of its siting, small size, and relocation of
existing plantings, is not visible from any other property within the PUD, Ute Avenue,
or North Alps Place. It is minimally visible from its immediate neighbor, Lot #7,
although obscured by a dense screen of evergreens. (see site photo)
From the vantage point of the ski easement above the site, the density of the
forest obscures any sitelines to the proposal.
The location on the site is as close as dimensional requirements allow the
structure to be located to the existing driveway, thereby reducing the extent of new
driveway. As noted above, the section of new drive follows the existing grade very
closely. The net change in paved to unpaved surfaces is zero.
7. See #6 above, and SKI.
8. 1 believe that there are sufficient services already available to the site.
9. Existing roads are adequate and can be properly maintained.
10. The existing driveway is adequate to accommodate fire protection and snow
removal equipment.
HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
November 18, 1998
Revised November 19, 1998
Willis Pember Architects, Inc.
Attn: Willis Pember
412 North Mill Street
5020 Road 154
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax 970 945 -8454
Phone 970 945 -7988
Aspen, Colorado 81611 Job No. 198 753
Subject: Observation of Site Conditions, Proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit,
Lot 6, Aspen Chance Subdivision, 970 Powder Lane, Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mr. Pember:
As requested, we observed the subject site conditions on November 5, 1998. The
purpose of our work was to review tt>.e potential geologic hazards at the site and provide
preliminary recommendations for foundation support of the accessory dwelling unit
(ADU). The findings of our work are presented in this report. The work was
performed in accordance with our agreement for professional services to you dated
November 4, 1998.
Background Information: The Aspen Chance Subdivision was developed in the early
to mid- 1980's with single family residences. We have obtained copies of previous
geologic and geotechnical site evaluations for the development by Chen and Associates
(1983a and 1983b). We have reviewed these reports as well as geologic mapping of the
area by Bryant (1972) and Fox (1974), and considered the information in the
preparation of this report.
Proposed Construction: The ADU will be a detached structure located just southwest
(uphill) of the existing residence. The structure will be two stories in height with the
lower level consisting of a garage cut into the hillside slope and daylighting to the
northeast. The garage floor will be slab -on- grade. We assume foundation loadings will
be relatively light and typical of the proposed construction. Existing sheds on the site
will be removed for the new construction. A shallow ditch located to the south will be
piped above the site.
Site Conditions: The proposed building site is at the transition from steeply sloping,
northeast facing, hillside terrain (30% to 50% grade) to moderately to strongly sloping
and landscaped terrain (15 % to 25 % grade) near the residence. The hillside in the area
has undergone previous grading consisting of generally shallow cuts and fills. There is
fill over most of the lot from previous mining activities in the area; however, the fill
depth appears limited on the hillside slope. There are occasional subangular boulders,
up to about 3 feet diameter, on the slope above the site. Vegetation consists of
moderately thick pine trees and brush on the hillside with lawn and trees in the
landscaped areas. A shallow ditch along the uphill side of the proposed building carries
water from the Durant Mine tunnel southwest of the site. Several inches of snow
covered the ground at the time of our site visit. Due to extensive mine dump fill on
Willis Pember Architects, Inc.
November 18, 1998
Revised November 19, 1998
Page 2
Lot 6, and most of the other nearby subdivision lots, relatively deep pile foundations
were used for support of the residences.
Geologic Conditions: Based on our observation of the site conditions, review of the
information by Chen (1983a), Bryant (1972), Fox (1974), and our experience in the
area, major geologic constraints at the site appear limited to the potential for
construction- induced slope instability, rockfall hazard, and mine tailings and works.
The potential for construction- induced slope instability can probably be adequately
mitigated by limiting cut depths for the structure as discussed below. We did not
observe major hillside drainages outletting directly above the site and the site is
apparently outside of mapped avalanche and debris flow hazard areas. Mapping by
Bryant (1972) does indicate potentially unstable mountainside slopes exist well above
the site. Due to scattered boulders on the steep slopes above the site, there may be a
low risk of rockfall hazard if the boulders were to become dislodged. Previous leachate
testing of the mine dump soils at the subdivision, as reported by Chen (1983b),
indicates generally high levels of total lead (18.0 to 4160.0 ppm) with lower
concentrations of arsenic (0.00 to 0.10 ppm), mercury (0.05 to 0.375 ppm) and
cyanides (0.085 to 0.205 ppm). We assume the mine dump soils were capped for the
previous subdivision development.
Underground mining has occurred in the area of the site. The mine works consist of
portals to underground tunnels on Aspen Mountain near the site and levels of
underground tunnels connecting Aspen Mountain with Smuggler Mountain across the
Roaring Fork Valley to the northeast. The previous work by Chen (1983a) indicates
that most of the mine workings are southwest, west and northwest of the site and states
that "the potential for surface subsidence due to collapse of underground mine works is
low to non - existent ".
Conclusions: It should be feasible to construct the accessory dwelling unit on the site
as generally planned. The risk for major potential geologic hazards affecting the
structure appears low and probably no greater than the adjacent existing residences.
Cut depths for the garage level should be limited to about 10 feet to minimize the risk
of construction- induced slope instability. Positive surface drainage should be provided
away from the structure in all directions. This could require a swale along the uphill
side. It is possible that fill soils containing concentrations of lead or other heavy metals
may be encountered at the site. The fill soils should be evaluated at the time of
excavation. Removal or capping of the fill soils may be needed if required by local
health officials.
Due to existing fill, the structure will probably need to be founded with relatively deep
pilings or a heavily reinforced mat (monolithic slab). Site specific study of the
H -P GEOTECH
Willis Pember Architects, Inc.
November 18, 1998
Revised November 19, 1998
Page 3
subsurface conditions should be performed for the building foundation design. The
subsurface evaluation would probably consist of an exploratory boring drilled in the
lower part of the proposed building site. More detailed recommendations for the
foundation design can be provided at that time.
Limitations: The conclusions submitted in this report are based on available site
information and our experience in the area, and are considered suitable for planning and
preliminary design'. It is possible the information obtained from site specific subsurface
investigation could change the conclusions provided in this report.
If there are any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAVLAK GEOTKHNICAL, INC.
4 •A ;
G7
David A. Young, P.E 'x,,, 32 -216
Rev. by: JZA
DAY /kk
References
Bryant, B., 1972, Map Showing Areas of Selected Potential Geologic Hazards in the
Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey Map I- 785 -A.
Chen and Associates, 1983a, Preliminary Engineering Geology Investigation, Chance
Mining Claim, Aspen, Colorado, Prepared for Mellon Enterprises, Job No. 26759,
dated November 18, 1983.
Chen and Associates, 1983b, Soil and Foundation Investigation for Proposed
Residential Development, Chance Mining Claim, Aspen, Colorado, Prepared for Aspen
Chance, Inc., Job No. 26759A, dated December 28, 1983.
Fox, F.M. and Associates, 1974, Roaring Fork and Crystal Valleys - An Environmental
and Engineering Geology Study, Colorado Geological Survey Environmental Geology
No. 8.
H -P GEOTECH
.Y
S � —
11 It,
s
"i4Z . R�
�y
4Y
Bi
A
Vi 8
8
q�} ,
'
OW,
,
�y
4Y
Bi
f
m f J
f
u f
i a� , i {jllll
r. °ci
h
fl
f
'
w:
� L
r
c
0
E
N
a
W
N
9 9
M N /
I
i
� I
Il
r
.I
- o
o
-
t
I
-
7
W ?
V'
Z
We
G
V!
W ,:
ix
N
W
Y
.a
LL.
i-
•
O
V
r
c
w
1p
a
T
Z
U ^
Z e
N
H o
U o
W z
F m
i I °
U �
aW
Cc
W m
m J
J
W I
a i
co
J z
J
3:
'co
° 0
«m .
_ ) C
a = -m
a '^
a�a
W =N
m
V -m`
m m m
3 = J
Z a m
G �
rU m
W°
=3
® m m m
m °a
U m
n
x
W
0
J
N
W
a
L6
z
O
W �
=a
F ^
a
W
U^
2 a
N
H o
U
w z
m
_ 6
= m
U
2
¢ W
w
w z
a z
N
J i
J
3:
"o
Coo
> C
�aa
O m
01�¢
W =N
_ m
V -m`
m V m
; � J
z
aU m
W � a
c c ;
Q m m o
m as
m N
W
0
J
W
a
L6
00
WI
31:
LL
Mum
jjjj�
INN
111!
IN
U^
2 a
N
H o
U
w z
m
_ 6
= m
U
2
¢ W
w
w z
a z
N
J i
J
3:
"o
Coo
> C
�aa
O m
01�¢
W =N
_ m
V -m`
m V m
; � J
z
aU m
W � a
c c ;
Q m m o
m as
m N
W
0
J
W
a
L6
00
WI
31:
LL
OU
•uedsy eueI iePMOd OL6.
U Is
I nIpgng
eouey0 uedsy 'ge
101
i o;
it u n B u
m 0 d J 0 s e 0 0 y
nav
3JN3(IIS3H
Z3'AVA
i
y
� d
d
u g
z
W '
a
I � d
L �
o IA
i
I ,
i
I
I
3
Z
n
a
d
W
I
F
s
-�-1�-4
I u
I d
I�R
f�
41
u'I
? I Q
I
�I tl
s. IN
N
b
d
0
Z
F
x
W
ml
J
I
I
a
F
d
t
U
Z e
N �
1- o
U.
W z
f- W
S ^
U �
w m
m
f
wf
aF
N �
J O
J
I a
0
D
J
3•
0.
DO
w
Y
i
a
F
� W
/ � s
°
I d
� c
W
/ a `
I a �
0
c a
L_
19 pm0d 0 L 6
Z
00
'u ads y 0Ua1
u0is!A!pgnS
aouag0
u ads y 'g#
101
101
1!u 0 6v^ "'am0
A o s a aoy
I
flan
�s- 3N3aIS3H
ZrAV3
w
Y
i
a
F
� W
/ � s
°
I d
� c
W
/ a `
I a �
0
c a
L_
°
.p
O
I
Z
e
E
I ll
I
v�
I Ie
I
I �
I �
1
I
U
Z a
N a
1- o
U o
W z
~ n
6
Q Y
w w
m
W z
N
J O
J �
z
s
;o
W �
W �
6
6 0
7I
V
IIW
Z
ii
�
I
-----------
o
I
11
°
.p
O
I
Z
e
E
I ll
I
v�
I Ie
I
I �
I �
1
I
U
Z a
N a
1- o
U o
W z
~ n
6
Q Y
w w
m
W z
N
J O
J �
z
s
;o
W �
W �
6
6 0
7I
V
00 ' u ads y auaI i e P 0 0 L 6 ,y
u 01 s i n i p q nom "' o u a g 0 uadsy gq 101
J 0 1 { i u n 6 am 0 R i a s a o o y
nav i3N3aIS3H Z3AVA
L
00
- uadstl , �u-I 10 pm 0d 0 L
-
u01sInipgnf
ivago u ads y 'gB
101
J O )
1 i u n 6
B m Q F 1 O S B D 0 y
nan
33N3a1S3H
Z3AVJ
i
W�
s,
a
zi
d �
�I
L1
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
0
0
IA.
a
Ik
:a
1
t
.r "i
iii.,. -..n
T1
'_.._
1
�'
�.
/P
1. -)
~� 1
4
�.
State of Colorado )
County of Pitkin
ss AFFIDAVIT OF JANET RACZAK
)
I, JANET RACZAK, Affiant, being of lawful age and duly sworn upon my oath, do depose and
state as follows:
On October 30, 1998 and November 2, 1998, I went to the Pitkin County Assessor's Office to
review the records of adjacent land owners who were to receive Notice for the Fayez Land Use
Application.
2. On October 29, 1998 November 2, 1998 and November 3, 1998, I accessed the Pitkin County
Assessor's records via its Website at http: / /www.aspen.com/assessor /, and printed the information
for each of the records identified as adjacent to the subject on the mapping provided by the
Assessor's Office.
3. Based on my research in the Pitkin County Assessor's Office, the most current list was provided
to Willis Pember, representative, for submittal to Aspen Community Development Office.
4. I made a good faith effort to obtain an accurate list of the names and addresses of the land owners
adjacent to Lewis' property assigned Parcel ID No. 273718298006, located on the maps at the
Assessor's Office (see Exhibit "A ").
5. The submittal also includes a copy of the mapping obtained from the Assessor's Office on
November 2, 1998 with parcel ID #'s of those parcels of record in the Assessor's computer
records available on October 29, November 2 and November 3, 1998 (see Exhibit `B ").
FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
J #et L. Raczak
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged and signed before me this _ day of November,
1998 by Janet L. Raczak.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: 6
(SEAT—)
NOTARY PUBLIC
U ,
a.
A I11:
FAYEZ LAND USE APPLICATION
Subject Parcel: Lot 6, Aspen Chance Subdivision
Physical Address: 970 Powder Lane, Aspen CO 81611
List of Property Owners Within 300 Feet of Subject
Gaard Hopkins Moses
Mary Lynn Patton
POB 21
Aspen CO 81612
Moses Aspen View Homesite, Inc.
C/o Leon Hirsch
150 Glover Ave.
Norwalk, CT 06856
Aspen Alps Condominium Association
POB 1228
Aspen CO 81612 -1128
L. Rodman Drake
485 Park Avenue #5A
New York, NY 10022
Herbert J. Winter
c/o Aspen Alps
POB 1228
Aspen CO 81612 -1228
Jerome A. Kaplan
6001 Montrose Road Suite 403
Rockville MD 20852
Frances & Peter C. Marzio
101 Westcott #1702
Houston TX 77007
Chester Salomon
975 Park Avenue
New York NY 10028
Edward & Janie Bradley
3006 S. Hughes
Amarillo TX 79109
Herbert & Susan Garten
36 S. Charles St.
Baltimore MD 21201
Ute Chalet Inc.
POB 1284
Aspen CO 81612 -1284
Indarosa Ltd.
c/o ATU General Trust Ltd.
19 Farnham Park
Houston TX 77024
GLC Trust
William A. Newsom Associates
POB 1569
Pacific Palisades CA 90272
Michael Chase
450 Newport Center Dr., Suite 304
Newport beach CA 92660
1981 Merrill & Jill E. Chosen Trust
640 Brewer Drive
Hillsborough CA 94010
Highland Investments & Karen Johnson
clo Holland & Hart
600 E. Main St.
Aspen CO 81611
I.G. Davis, Jr.
1095 Ute Avenue
Aspen CO 81611
Aspen Skiing Company
POB 1248
Aspen CO 81612 -1248
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen CO 81611
Michael & Elizabeth Dingman
c/o Southampton
POB 2666
Palm Beach FL 33480 -2666
f
Doyle & Margaret Hartman Ascali Corporation
POB 10426 c/o Mendez -Insua CPA
Midland TX 79702 8300 S.W. 8s St., #303
Miami FL 33144
William T. & Mary A. Dillard
c% Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. Marianne Martin
POB 486 3261 Breckenridge Drive East
Little Rock AR 72203 -0486 Colorado Springs CO 80906
Nancy Schaldach J. Todd & Eric Figi
720 S. Mashta Drive POB 85515
Key Biscayne FL 33149 San Diego CA 92186
Thomas & Cathryn Crum Herbert Gelfand
991 Ute Avenue 9171 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 610
Aspen CO 81611 Beverly Hills CA 90210
Park Trust Ltd. Jane Black
POB 940 2323 Bryan LB 145
Aspen CO 81612 -0940 Dallas TX 75201
Aspen Alps Homeowners Association John & Peggy Polk
700 Ute Avenue 586 Camino Montebello
Aspen CO 81611 Sante Fe NM 87501
Richard A. Auhll
Robert & Charlynn Maxwell Porter
c/o Circon Corp
611 Parkway Suite F -13
6500 Hollister Ave.
Gatlinburg TN 37738
Santa Barbara CA 93117 -3019
Chicago IL 60611
Jeffrey Kenner
Maureen M. Roin
720 Park Ave 46 -B
1225 Westmoor Road
New York NY 10021
Winnetka IL 60093
Darlene M. McCluskey
Aspen Shadow LLC
Two Coventry Court
John Hancock Center
Prairie Village KS 66208
875 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1560
Chicago IL 60611
F.G. Fabian, Jr.
POB 2606
John & Barbara Riddell
Capistrano Beach CA 92624
1021 Main Street, Suite 1250
Houston TX 77002
William J. Cabaniss
3812 Forest Glen Drive
Birmingham AL 35213
Leon & Turi L. Hirsch
150 Glover Drive
Lodstar West Partnership LLP
Norwalk CT 06850
175 Bellevue Drive
Boulder CO 80302
Nancy M. Harris
386 S. Mississippi River Blvd.
St. Paul MN 55105
n =,
n/ Betty G. Amos
13724 SW 92 Court
Miami FL 33176
Halglenn Corporation
1428 Brickell Ave
Miami FL 33131
Clarissa H. Chandler
902 N. Green Bay Road
Lake Forest IL 60045
'-
Hurt Family LP
Capital Group Inc.
333 S. Hope Street., 501' Floor
fy�i
Los Angeles CA 90071
Isaac Arnold Jr.
Attn: Royann Beckham
601 Jefferson #400
Houston TX 77002
Margaret T. Phelps
389 California Terr.
Pasadena CA 91105
_
0
ME
no
�
N)
G
G
G
$
ME
&
e
7
@
+
g
Q
0
ME
on
D
@
@
,e
■
/
e
+
/
0
�
�
+
Q
�
G
@
9
§
�
0
E
■
&
0
:
@
+
w
e
OD
e y
+
+
e a ®
LD R
$ 1,��
■
NJ
0
�
e
z
* �
Q
@
f ƒ�A
»�\
/D
� @
$ Q 6 0
m qq @ 0�1,
2 § \
. A =
0
»
$
+� § Q
$z (D
� /
IMPROVEMENT
ST C, ASPEN CHANT
PITKIN ❑LINTY) C
SET REBAR & CAP
CS, N0 269 ❑
N 183'3I'12" E
FOUND REBAR
AND CAP
L. S. NO. 1-95-95
ELEV=100'
S 84021-
5U,01'� FOUND REBAR
AND CAP
L.S. N0, 195-98
A= 103.3 7'
F=56. 00 '
zL _ 164 °31 '28"
B=S J105,3'41" W
C= 71.34'
T= 264.95 '
N 24009'25"
E
11,46'
25'
SETBACK
7L S
TRASH
GA RA GE
WOODSHED -
GA S METER
4" PVC
ARTESIAN WELL
DRAINAGE
MECHANICAL
SHED
TREE (TYP.
N 42 053'00" W
112.07'
REBAR
N 39 °37'57" E 1
&lo/ UT
Io ILIT�,�
SKI GSM
ti �-
�J o
_o
Q 6.2,
Lo
ni
a.o
1g� 12,5,
r�
to 3
20.5.
HOUSE
O SPOT ELEV,
— 100.38 16,3. o
8.5, o co
4q,3, o Qi
Go
TILE- E �
°��� P�N�
DEC
,,0� S
UPPE
2
FOUND
--
& CAF
TRAIL
10' SETBACK
5' UTIL, ESN
SURVEY
E SUBDIVISI ❑N
ILORRDD
0° E
68'
CJ
CID
11L
167,6�l
FOUND REBAR
AND CAP
L,S� N❑, 19598
i
S�
\3
(DECK
0.,
Scale. >" = 20 feet
S 08 020'58" W
57.32'
,SET REBAR & Cf
L,S, N❑ 26950
S 47 007'00" W
X2,73
FOUND REBAR
AND CAP
L,S� N❑, 19598
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 6, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF THE RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 4, 5 AND 6
OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF ASPEN CHANCE SUBDIVISION, RECORDED NOVEMBER 9,
1989 IN PLAT BOOK 23 AT PAGE 55 AS RECEPTION NO. 317001.
NOTES
1) THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS SURVEY IS A BEARING OF N47 °07'00'E
BETWEEN A REBAR AND CAP AND A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO 19598 ALONG THE
EASTERLY LINE OF THE PARCEL AS SHOWN HEREON,
2) ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON AN ASSUMED ELEVATION OF 100 FEET
AT A REBAR AND CAP, L.S. NO 19598 LOCATED ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF THE
CUL -DE -SAC AS SHOWN HEREON.
3) CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2 FEET,
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY
I hereby certify that this Improvement Survey was prepared by Scarrow and Walker,
Inc. for Willis Pember under my direct supervision and checking and that it
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
I further certify that the improvements on the above described parcel on this date,
October 21, 1998, except utility connections as shown, are entirely within the
boundaries of the parcel, except as shown, that there are no encroachments upon
the described premises, except as indicated, and that there is no apparent evidence
or sign of any easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel, except as noted.
This Improvement Survey does not represent a title search by Scarrow and Walker, Inc,
or this land surveyor to determine ownership or easements of record. All information
regarding ownership, easements and other encumbrances of record was obtaine�4 0w&
tale insurance commitment issued by Pitkin County Title, of Aspen, .,oa .fs /f
Colorado, insurance commitment order No. PCT -9923. r O .•••' °`+., I
�q CID
O
a`>
C
a>
a
0
0
U
!CV
A�
`V
i
3
0
0
0
o
�
O
a`>
C
a>
a
0
0
U
!CV
A�
`V
i
3
0
0
0