Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.505 Sneaky Ln ADU.A090-01 r'1 ~/ CASE NUMBER PARCEL ill # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY i'I A090-01 2735-122-70004 Camp Special Review for ADU Door 505 Sneaky lane James Lindt Special Review Bob Camp & Cynthia Curlee Same 12/11/01 Application Withdrawn 12/14/01 J. Lindt ,-.. f) .1 Wltl-tdvawl1 t"""; () December 13,2001 Bob Camp Cynthia Curlee , PO Box 692 Aspen, cq 81612 ASPEN ' PITKIN . RE: ADD Proposal Clarification COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . CERTIFIED MAIL DearMr. Camp & Mrs. Curlee: Please let this letter serve as a clarification Ofl your options as a result of your application being withdrawn at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting last ev,~ning. Your options to remain in conformance with the applicable zpning requirements are 'as follows: . ' . Maintain a 600 square foot ADD a~ approved on your building permit plans. This. unit would include' both the second floor and the first floor, area that you have, , proposed to convert to II studio/worksJ:lOp, If you choose, this option and. wish to rent 'out the unit, YOll mustrent out the entire 600 square feet because you deed restricted the entire ?OO square feet. ' ' . . . Convert the 188 square feet on the first floor to a studio/workshop, for your use, If, you c~oose this option, you must wall off the, stairWell to the ADD unit and provide' . another exterior entrance din;ctly into the unit or into the stairwell to the unit. If you , choose this option you, ,must obtain the requiredbuildiilg permits to remodel the structure. . . 'Convert the 188. square feet of the tmit on the first floor to a studio/workshop for. your use and remove the kitchen '(cooking. devices) in the. ADD unit so that you do not , have three units that count towards the allowable density on your parcel. If you choose this option you will haye to relinquish the entire FAR exemption that you , gained from constructing the detached Accessory:Dwelling Unit becauseY9u will no longer be considered to have an ADD. I have informed the Aspen/Pitkin Housing AuthoritY of your sitUation and they will be required to do enforcement if your property were.to fall out or,compliance with the terms of your,deed , restriction or the applicable zoning on your pr,operty. Please call me at 920-5095 with any questions that you may have regarding your situation. Regards, . .,' ..:. _ Iii ~~ James Lindt, Planning Technician , City of Aspen cc: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Christensen, Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer ' Planning and Zohing Commission , . 13(fSOUTH GALENA STREET' 'ASPEN, COLORADO 8161l~197S . PHONE 970.920.5090 . FAX 970.920.5439 " Prin~ed on Recycled P~per ./ (""'), () ]][ 1!. . MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director ~ FROM: James Lindt, Planning Technician J1- RE: 505 Sneaky Lane Special Review for an Interior Door between an ADU and the Main Residence (proposed Workshop Area), Public Hearing DATE: December 11, 2001 -I , ApPLICANT: Bob Camp PARCELID: 2735-122-70-004 ADDRESS: 505 Sneaky Lane ZONING: R-30 PDD (Low- Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 51,770 SF lot that contains a duplex with an ADU. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to reduce the size of a two-story ADD that is currently being constructed above a detached garage. The applicant requests to convert the first floor of the ADD into a workshop area for the use of the main residence (please see ADD floor plan attached as Exhibit "B"). The ADD would still meet all of the ADD design standards except that it would technically have an interior door" A special review approval for a variance from the ADD design standards would be required to allow for an interior door to remain between the ADD and the proposed workshop space that will be used by the primary residence. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant, Bob Camp, seeks special review approval to vary the ADD design standards to allow for an interior door between the ADD entryway and the proposed first floor workshop area to be used solely by the main residence. The ADD was originally reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission through the stream margin review process and was approved to be constructed pursuant to the Resolution No. 10, series of 2001. At that review, the applicant only showed the upper portion of the structure as being part of the ADD. It appears that there was a mix up between the architect and the owner on the building permit submittal that was approved, in that the architect included the workshop space as part of the ADD and labeled it as such. The approved building permit plans show the first floor workshop portion of the structure as being included as part of the ADD FAR. Therefore, the ADD would be in complete compliance with the ADD design standards as it is shown on the approved building permit plans because the proposed workshop area is included as part ofthe ADD. - r'>. 1""\ ; .} To obtain approval for the variance from the ADD design standards to allow for an interior door to remain between the proposed workshop area designated for the use of the main residence and the ADD, the application must meet the following review criteria pursuant to Section 26.520,080(D), Special Review: a) The proposed ADD is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADD program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability; and, b) The proposed ADD is designed to be compatible with, lmd subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance ofthe property; and, c) The proposed ADD is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on-street parking, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. STAFF COMMENTS: Staff believes that allowing for the interior door to remain would take away from the general livability of the upstairs ADD unit in that the resident of the ADD would have to walk through the applicant's workshop area to get to their unit. Staff does not take issue with the applicant's proposal to change the first floor space from part of the ADD to a workshop area, It appears that it was the applicant's intention to use the space as a workshop in the first place because the Stream Margin Review plans showed the space as a workshop, and the ADD would still meet all of the applicable design standards with the exception of the interior door. However, staff feels that a separate entrance to the ADD should be provided into the stairwell and that the workshop area should be walled off from the stairwell, which would allow the conversion of the space, and still maintain the ADD's compliance with all of the applicable design standards. Staff feels that if the applicant is going to take net livable square footage away from the ADD, it should be required of the unit to remain in compliance with all of the ADD design standards, including the standard that requires a separate exterior entrance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecornmends that the Planning and Zoning Cornmissiondeny the special review applications to allow for an interior door between the ADD and the proposed workshop/studio area. RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN THE POSITIVE): "1 move to approve Resolution No._, Series of2001, approving a special review to vary the ADD design standards to allow for an interior door to be maintained between the ADD, located above the garage, and the proposed first floor workshop area located at 505 Sneaky Lane," 2 .- ,,' r'\ ~ A TT ACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria & Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application & Plans r:::- Exhibit C -- Planning and Zoning,Commission Resolution No.,;;)[Series 2001 3 ; '" , , .-../i CASE NUMBER PARCEL In # CASE NAME PROJECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY r'\ A090-01 2735-122-70004 Camp Special Review for ADU Door 505 Sneaky lane James Lindt Special Review Bob Camp & Cynthia Curlee Same 12/11/01 Application Withdrawn 12/14/01 J. Lindt ,I"".. f"'I ,. ..1 r. tl 0'" December 13, 2001 Bob Camp Cynthia Curlee , PO Box 692 Aspen; CO 81612 . , ASPEN' PITKIN . RE: ADD Proposal Clarification COMMUNlTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 'CERTIFIED MAIL DearMr, Camp & Mrs. Curlee: , Please let this letter ~erve as a clarification or, your options' as a result of your application being withdrawn at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting last evening. Your options to remain in conformance with the applicable zpning requirements are 'as follows: . ' . Maintain a 600 square foot ADD as approved on your buiilding permit plans. This, unit would include both the second floor and the first floor ,area thiltyou ha\'e, , proposed to convert to i,l studio/workshop. If you choose this option and wish to rent 'out the unit, you must'rent out the entire 600 square feet becau~e you deed restricted the entire ?OO square 'feet. ' . . Convert the 188 square feet on the first floor to a studio/workshop for your use, If you Choose this option, you must wall offthe,stairivell to the ADD unit and provide' another exterior entrance directly into the unit or into the stairwell to the unit. If you ' choose this option you. ,must obtain the required ,building permits to remodel the' structure, " . ' \ '"". . 'Convert the 188, square feet of the unit on the first floor to a studio/workshop for,your use and remove the kit~hen '(cooking devices) in the ADD unit so that youdo not , have three units that count towards theallowable density on your parcel. If you choose this option yo,u will have to relinquish the entire FAR exeniption that you, gained from constructing the detached Accessory,Dwelling Unit becauseY9u will no longer be considered to have an ADD, I have informed the AspenlPitkin Housil)g Authority of your situation and they will be required to do enforcement if your property were'to fall out of.compliance with the terms of yout,deed . . . . 'I . . restriction or the applicable zoning on your property. Please call me at 920-5095 with any questions that you may have regarding your situation, Regards, " ...:... /JI ~~ James Lindt, Planning Technician , City of Aspen cc: David Hoefer, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Christensen, Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer " , Planning and Z9uing Commis:sion '.. , ,13(JS~UTHGALE.~A STREET. ASPEN, COLORAoO 81611.1975 . PHONE 970.920.5090 . FAX970.920.5439 '- Prlnled (>nReeyc!ed Paper .' C", r1 , 1IL 1!. . MEMORANDUM To: Planning & Zoning Commission THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director ~ FROM: James Lindt, Planning Technician JL- HE: 505 Sneaky Lane Special Review for an Interior Door between an ADU and the Main Residence (proposed Workshop Area), Public Hearing DATE: December 11,2001 ApPLICANT: Bob Camp PARCELID: 2735-122-70-004 ADDRESS: 505 Sneaky Lane ZONING: R-30 PUD (Low- Density Residential) CURRENT LAND USE: 51,770 SF lot that contains a duplex with an ADD. PROPOSED LAND USE: The applicant proposes to reduce the size of a two-story ADD that is currently being constructed above a detached garage. The applicant requests to convert the first floor of the ADU into a workshop area for the use of the mail) residence (please see ADD floor plan attached as Exhibit "B"), The ADD would still meet all of the ADD design standards except that it would technically have an interior door. A special review approval for a variance from the ADD design standards would be required to allow for an interior door to remain between the ADD and the proposed workshop space that will be used by the primary residence. STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant, Bob Camp, seeks special review approval to vary the ADD design standards to allow for an interior door between the ADD entryway and the proposed first floor workshop area to be used solely by the main residence. The ADD was originally reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission through the stream margin review process and was approved to be constructed pursuant to the Resolution No. 10, series 01'2001. At that review, the applicant only showed the upper portion of the structure as being part of the ADD. It appears that there was a mix up between the architect and the owner on the building permit submittal that was approved, in that the architect included the workshop space as part of the ADD and labeled it as such. The approved building permit plans show the first floor workshop portion of the structure as being included as part of the ADD FAR. Therefore, the ADD would be in complete compliance with the ADD design standards as it is shown on the approved building permit plans because the proposed workshop area is included as part of the ADD. r-, ~ To obtain approval for the variance from the ADD design standards to allow for an interior door to remain between the proposed workshop area designated fbr the use of the main residence and the ADD, the application must meet the following review criteria pursuant to Section 26.520,080(D), Special Review: a) The proposed ADD is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADD program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability; and, b) The proposed ADD is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property; and, c) The proposed ADD is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on-street parking, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities, STAFF COMMENTS: Staff believes that allowing for the interior door to remain would take away from the general livability of the upstairs ADD unit in that the resident of the ADD would have to walk through the applicant's workshop area to get to their unit Staff does not take issue with the applicant's proposal to change the first floor space from part of the ADD to a workshop area, It appears that it was the applicant's intention to use the space as a workshop in the first place because the Stream Margin Review plans showed the space as a workshop, and the ADD would still meet all of the applicable design standards with the exception of the interior door. However, staff feels that a separate entrance to the ADD should be provided into the stairwell and that the workshop area should be walled off from the stairwell, which would allow the conversion of the space, and still maintain the ADD's compliance with all of the applicable design standards, Staff feels that if the applicant is going to take net livable square footage away from the ADD, it should be required of the unit to remain in compliance with all of the ADD design standards, including the standard that requires a separate exterior entrance, STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the special review applications to allow for an interior door between the ADD and the proposed workshop/studio area, RECOMMENDED MOTION(ALL MOTIONS ARE STATED IN TIlE POSITIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No,-, Series of2001, approving a special review to vary the ADD design standards to allow for an interior door to be maintained between the ADD, located above the garage, and the proposed first floor workshop area located at 505 Sneaky Lane," 2 ~, ~ / ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria & Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application & Plans Exhibit C -- Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No..5C8eries 2001 3 .#""'\ ~ EXHIBIT A REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS Section 26.520.080 Special Review for ADD Design Standards The Planning and Zoning Commission may grant relief from the Accessory Dwelling Dnit (ADD) Design Standards at a public hearing if the variance from the design standards is found to be: a) the proposedADD is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose of the ADD program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability; and, b) the proposed ADD is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property; and, c) the proposed ADD is designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood considering all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of on-street parking, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. In response to the review criteria for a variance from the ADD design standards, staff makes the following findings: a) The proposed ADD is designed in a manner which promotes the purpose ofthe ADD program, promotes the purpose of the zone district in which it is proposed, and promotes the unit's general livability. Staff Finding Staff finds that the special review to allow for an interior door to be constructed between the ADD and the proposed workshop area would detract from the general livability ofthe ADD unit, in that the door would reduce the, intended separation between the ADD and an area for the use of the main residence. Staff feels that because there is an open stairwell to the ADD, allowing for access to be maintained from this workshop area to the ADD would detract from the privacy of the unit. The proposed ADD plan does not include a door at the top of the stairwell to even allow for the ADD resident to lock off the unit from the workshop area. Staff feels that this criterion is not met. 4 1""'\ f""'. b) The proposed ADD is designed to be compatible with, and subordinate in character to, the primary residence considering all the dimensions, site configuration, landscaping, privacy, and historical significance of the property. Staff Finding The ADD to be well integrated into the entire site, however; staff finds that allowing the door between the ADD and the proposed workshop area on the first floor will take away from the privacy of the upstairs ADD. As proposed, the unit will not have a door at the top of the stairwell to lock it off from the workshop area, Staff feels that this criterion is not met by the application, c) The proposed ADD is designed in a manner which is: compatible with or enhances the character of the neighborhood consideJring all dimensions, density, designated view planes, operating characteristics, traffic, availability of off-street parking, availability of transit services, and walking proximity to employment and recreational opportunities. Staff Finding Staff finds that this application does not detract from the neighborhood considering the development design and siting. This standard is not tested by the change to the development proposal from what was originally approved. 5 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!~IIIIIIIIII 1111111111111 452715 03/26/2001 02:37P RESOLUTIDAVIS SILVI 1 of 4 R 20.00 D0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO 1"""""'1 Lxru'b ii- Ilell RESOLUTION NO. 10 (SERIES OF 2001) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVIN(j.THESTREAM~GINREVfEWFORAN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DuPLEX AND NEW GARA.GEWITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITAT 505 SNEAKY LANE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735-122-70-004 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Bob Camp and Cindy Curlee ("Applicant"), represented by Rally Stupps of Studio B, for an Environmentally Sensitive Area - Stream Margin Review, for a partial demolition and addition to one-half of a duplex and the demolition and reconstruction of a detached garage with a new accessory dwellipg unit, at 505 Sneaky Lane, City of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is approximately 52,186 square feet, and is located in the R-30/PUD, Low Density Residential Zone District; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the one-hundred-year floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within a flood hazard area if the development complies with all of the review criteria set forth in Section 26.435.040(C) Stream Margin Review; and, WHEREAS, the subject property and proposed development are located within 100 feet of the Castle Creek 100-year floodplain; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the Stream Margin Review with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public meeting on March 6, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved, by a five to zero (5-0) vote, the Stream Margin Review for the Camp Residence, 505 Sneaky Lane, with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning C::ommission fmds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission fmds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION as follows: r"\ 1/1111I 1111I111::111I1111 11I11111111111I1111111111111 452715 03/2~/2001 02:37P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 2 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO Section 1 That the Stream Margin Review, Plan Set C, for the Camp Residence, 505 Sneaky Lane is approved with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Prior to issuance o~ a building permit: a. Prior to the issuance of building permits or development including demolition, the applicant shall submit a detailed landscape plan to the Community Development Department and Parks Department showing the size, species, quantity, and location of all existing and planned native vegetation in the area proposed for development to the 100-year floodpla.in. The final landscape plan shall be approved by the Community Development Director after considering a recommendation by the Parks Department. No other landscape improvements or changes to the terrain, except those approved by the Community Development Director, are approved, b, The primary contractor shall submit a letter to the Community Development Director stating that the conditions of approval have been read and understood, c. All tap fees, impacts fees, and building permit fees shall be paid. If an alternative agreement to delay payment of the Water Tap and/or Parks Impact fee.is finalized, those fees shall be payable according to the agreement. d. The City Engineer shall approve the grading and drainage plan for,the parcel, including the proposed addition, driveway, and garage. e. The Applicant shall submit and the Environmental Health Department shall approve a fugitive dust control plan to ensure that dust does not blow onto neighboring properties or get tracked onto adjacent roads. f. The improvement survey notes a Pedestrian and River Recreation easement, however, no lines appear to indicate the width or exact location of the easement. The applicant should provide a legal description of the easement for this application. g. A tree removal permit as required by the City Parks Department and any approval from the Parks Department Director for off-site replacement or mitigation of removed trees. The site plan/landscape plan indicates that several trees are to be removed as part of this development. The improvement survey should indicate the size and species of the trees on the lot over four (4) inches in diameter at four and a half feet (4 1(2') above grade. No excavation or storage of materials is permitted within the dripline of existing trees to be saved. 3. Run~offfrom the site during construction must be prevented by detention ponds, hay bales, or similar methods to be ,approved by the City Engineer. 4. For the purpose of maintaining the integrity ofthe Castle Creek riparian area and to minimize the impacts from the new development and construction, the applicant shall observe the following construction process: r-. ~ j a. The Applicant shall place silt fencing at the lOO-year floodplain for the entire construction process. No construction or alteration of thl~ landscape is permitted beyond the lOO-year flood plane. b. Existing vegetation within the construction area shall be tied back to prevent damage. c. After construction, all disturbed soils shall be stabilized a.nd/or revegetated to the approval of the Community Development and Parks Departments, as indicated in the Landscape Plan. d. All representations made by the applicant's representative: to the Commission concerning the process, timing, and materials for constfUi~tion shall be considered conditions of approval. 5. The building permit application shall include: a. A copy of the final recorded P&Z Resolution. b. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. , c. A completed tap permit for service with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. d. The building plans shall demonstrate an adequate fire suppression system for fire protection approved by the Aspen Fire Marshal. The Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve ingress and egress to the property. 6. All construction vehicles, materials, and debris shall be maintained on-site and not within public rights-of-way unless specifically approved by the Director of the Streets Department. All vehicle parking, including contractors' and their employees', shall abide by the parking limitations of the area. The applicant shall inform the contractor of this condition. 7. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the hours between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. 8. Before issuance ofa building permit, the applicant shaIlrecord the Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the altemative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution. 9. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 10. The Applicant or owner shall mitigate any public impacts that this project causes, including but not limited to utility expenses and sanitary sewer and water lines. 1 I. All uses and construction will comply with the City of Aspen Water System Standards and with Title 25 and applicable portions of Title 8 (Water Conservation and Plumbing Advisory Code) of the Aspen Municipal code as they pertain to utilities. 111111I1111I11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 4!5271!1 03/267200102:37P RESO,LUTI D,AVISSILVI 3 of 4 R 20.00 D0.00 tf0.0'0PITKIN COUNTY Co ;,,,"~ o 1"""""'1 J.; . .."1 12. The Aspen Fire Marshal shall approve a fire suppression system for the structure. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 6th day of March, 2001. t'- APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: D~ -4- " 't_Y -- ATTEST: ~ 111111111111111111111111111111I111111111111111111111111 4!5271!103/26/2001 02:37P RESOLUTI DAVIS SILVI 4 of 4 R 20.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO " 1"""';, f) Robert Camp & Cynthia Curlee P. O. Box 692,505 Sneaky Lane Aspen, CO 81612 September 10,2001 Mr. James Lindt City of Aspen, Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Dear James, Thanks for meeting with Rally Dupps about our ADU issue. As we proceed, we want to ! be sure that our concerns and proposed action are clear. By way of background, our initial building permit application included the same garage- building footprint, but did not include the second story ADU. The room to the west of the garage was to be a multipurpose room, as part of the main residence, for use as an office, storage, gardening, studio etc. When we added the ADU on the upper level, our concept of the lower level room did not change. According to the approvals and building permit, the lower level is part of the ADU. This probably happened, without us understanding it, so the ADU would be considered to have an exterior entrance. We strongly support the City's efforts in the area of affordable housing, and do not want to see ourselves as abusing the system in any way. Specifically, we do not want to get the FAR bonus based on a false premise. As a practical matter, the lower level is not going to be used in connection with the ADU except as a pathway to the interior entrance and to some extent as a "mud room." Although this lower level space is labeled as ADU, it is in fact part of the main residence, as originally planned. We would like the permits and approvals to be consistent with the actual use of this space, and accordingly not receive the FAR bonus with respect to the lower level space. To do this, we thought the best way would be to have the interior entrance approved so the ADU starts at the door to the stairs which lead up to the ADU. There would be no changes to the plans as already approved or how the space will in fact be used. The only changes are where the ADU officially starts and the FAR bonus would be reduced. Since we see this as a change to the existing approvals, we are wondering if we need to resubmit all of the information which is already contained in the approved applications and plans. Please refer to Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution No. 10 (Series of 200 1) and Building Permit #3 I 73 .2000.asr3. The following addresses the information needs as outlined in the attached Pre-Application Conference Summary: I. Proof of ownership - you have on file as part of original application. r-, ~ 2. Signed fee agreement - enclosed. 3. Applicant's name etc. - this letter should suffice for that purpose. We should be the primary contacts with respect to this matter. Rally Dupps (925-6797) and Scott Lindenau (920-9428) are also authorized to act on our behalf. Their address is Studio B Architects, 555 N Mill St., Aspen, CO 81611. 4. Street address etc. - you have on file as part of original application. 5 . Total deposit - enclosed. 6. 10 copies - Not sure how to handle this, we have endosed 10 copies of this letter. We would be happy to pay any additional copy costs. 7. Vicinity map - you have on file as part of original application. 8. Site map - you have on file as part of original application and approved building plans; there are no changes. 9. Existing and Proposed ADU floor Plans - you have on file as part of original application and approved building plans; there are no changes. All dwelling unit elements, except entry door and stairs, are on upper level. 10. Additional materials as required by the specific review - hopefully the explanation above, along with the original application, which approved the ADU, will suffice. 1 I. A written description of the proposal - This letter explains the proposal and why we are making it. Existing conditions (not quite existing yet, we are under construction) as evidenced by the approved building permit are exactly the same as proposed herein. We hope that you will support this change and look forward to discussing it with you. We will contact you within a few days to set up a meeting so we can understand the process going forward and provide anything else that may be needed. Sincer~ I'L~C-p:= Robert Camp ~Q.~ Copy: Rally Dupps Scott Lindenau r-. 1""'\ ) ASPENII'ITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A2reement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and /2 b.Rrr Ct9"h1 p ce. C7""v7h ~/1 6-,-I-p€:- (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: ' , I. AP~ICANT has submitted to CITY an application for 'ZRP/Lp bOVNH d ~() I,;> Sr-"1 ., - (hereinafter, THE PRO] CT) , S/,.2v";,J Rev r-e..;> 70 /;v -.e'2.1 CJ r Prl/r-t2 &;V"C ~ 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processiing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness, 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit aclditional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals, APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty oftecovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4, CITY and APPLICANT .further agree that it is impracticabl<: for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings ~ are paid in full prior to decision. f / ..r ( ~ 5, Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its ri ht to~::'''''J ( full fees prior to a determination of applicatio~completeness, APPLICANT shalll pay an initial eposit in the amount of$ %. ilO which is for 2. ~ hours of Community Development staff time nd if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of$205,00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shan be made wilhin 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid, CITY OF ASPEN By: ~JJL B. APPLIC~ r- /c AI (--y-- ~ n, J20 Q ) '1;1&>/DI t ie Ann Woods ommunity Development Director Date: Mailing Address: f?o./J'o,,: ;1cs-~../,v. {/ 0 c; r ':<. ft&/~ g :Isu p po rtlformslagrpa yas.d oc 1/1 % 1 ,(II -/>.)> = AI '" " )> '" --:(11 ~ 'm '" qr () ~ :2 ~ ~~ m AI r m < m r \l !"~ r )> z (j) E9 6(- AI -; :r ~~- @ b j;j ,l; 1S..n . ,- ~ i1l~~~H )!ij\(\;<;~ ---I (HI! zZjU~J: Z(j\Z(j\(\ (j\ rn)>o 5 6~~ r "l1(j\:;<J r rn I I fII ~ I I ~~ ;s ! \) --,- Lf--- -" unf'--' ~. i ~~ L I I 1 I I l-{ r-, ------n'''--'- 18'-0" 1'-11" __n.._._...____., _ '-01/:2" 6'-0 l/4K J '~r~.r~"L / ~~ -l \J1 3'-1> 3/4' --~...._-----_.._-- )ow @ () q \Jl .- q ~ ;s is \l ~ Ve",I'-O" .., "" r' C, ~_d -, c, (j\ ~~ II I I I I 11 )> ;0 7'<-0 Z- (j\x U\:ii 11 - )> (\ rn-- ~ !J>'::.Y @ @ I' oq 4'-B~" ------)'- 15'-6" ~. t 4'-:2~" 1 ~, tiJ' m ;0. (\ o ,- , ~~ 8~ .so , ~ I I ;0' , ~ I I I I I :-J -~, s;D i \:BI I I I I ;01 I () I I I --"--'" .-, I I J==ccc.J ;'2 4'-;;~;:- J" ~ ! ()> ) ~-. , ,(\ m ThuSep1309:45:15;~ ~ U ~ 'r., ;- <>~ --::--F - - -I-~ ~ '- - - --1&l~L I $ ~" = - ,.,. j " - I I) I '" ~ ~~ I -H-~~" l L 'R ~ ~!~n~ I~ I ~ ~~~~t'v "~ I '" ~:t'<~ <;;." - n ~ ~ ~ ~?'" - ~~~ ~ Ij :-0" ~ ~ "-5112' ", i:;l~ I ~}\ i~. Jlrm; liL 1 LI,I\U I u'l~ I .,'0 l" I 1\?\ "':% AI '. U1Y IM,I'" ~ -_I- I ~...: <>"- 6:'-- - H - '=iI~ . ~~, I ($ ~I- t, l ~ TI ~ ~[I,:~ i ~lHJ~ Jl, h,LW, ~1_1 RI1",II JL,I ". ~I- I:l (JI - ~~ 0 ~ ..':! J. HlJlLJI I ;lJ I ~)o I.l I 2 ~ '( l~::' ~ 1 ~ 2 L LlJU11 A ~ :~ I~~ "'l;tP'I~ 6,r \lff~j;L ~~~ t %Wi ~ ~ 11$ I~ :I~_ ~. ~~ 2~ --Ii) -R&- Lilli II JlJLIl ~ :L- "-~- I ~ 2~;. f IP-{lU_~LlMrah ~ I 1t-JJf"..V2@"ll J\ iJ)~- o/~n rul tu,_l!-ll ( Ul )--,,~ .----t---. '" ~~ l.f. '~D~'&IIUl~~_ 1II111111111 _ III II ~Y1:'l.ULlJIUII~1 ~ II I'll IIII II ,D11 UJUIJUlJI ~ - .'{gjLLL T1 I' : lrrlrtITt_idt~llllllllllllllli /~ 'I WlllWllLUttLlULllllJIl ,JIIII II I r )0 L tllJULLlILM ~IIIII (\J II ~. lLU~lLu~,Uj,U,i',1I l,I"I~llll \:i 1,1,1, I I illUJ L!IIlLLUUUIIJIIII m~ ILLLL.l111 II I ,UUI tJLIlllIl1I IIII1 ~ ~ 1,tU +W,JUT _l!-lLLLJUL IUllLD.JW j L III I 111111 II ~ I rn " JUL 1l"ILillLI)_,j I TUUULJ1,JU I J 1,11"11,,,11, II 1) ,11,\ ~ J .,!-l:bll 111~lLUJJrt1 tH 1-11 i+:l:l.:tt:Jlli:!t::U::bLlL II II tt.lill F ' ~!- UNI~I~L,l,l~iY ILlf,ltAL,fJNrJILrl'll/rl,1 1/1111111,1 i 1I,I /3L;:Mi l~ }7 ~ )~ ." ~ 6 ~ U ~;> ~ ~n m ~(fI . mo r ~'I ~O~ ~ ~ ~~~ m ~ ~ z (=)-. EB~- ,GI -l>,}o - Xl II }o -:GI 1m o.c - \l \l m Xl r m < m r \l ~ "$ ~ ~" ~ aJ <('Q ~, ..., ~: ~ ~' t =l'> "2p> Ci 17 <::., C. f") . i \J ~~ (~) 16'-0" I --.---.-....,..-...)' ~ '" ffi8 ~g ~I ",0 O' II. ~_ II-----:- ~ Ii ( , 4'-6 ;!I/4" 4'-91/4" 4'-;:11/4" 4'-69/4" ---.-...---.--.... ( 1"""""'1 r-. , Camp Special Review Notes This is a public hearing to consider a special review application submitted by Bob Camp requesting to vary the ADU design standards to allow him to maintain an interior door between the stairwell for the upstairs ADD and an area that he proposes to convert from part of the ADU to workshop/studio area at 505 Sneaky Lane, If you will please look at the floor plans that are attached as Exhibit B in your packet, the applicant wishes to convert the area labeled as studio from being a portion of the ADU to a workshop area. This is the area that I have outlined in Red in the large floor plans. Staff does not take issue with the conversion, but does feel that the conversion should still yield an ADU unit that meets all of the ADU design standards. Staff believes that the conversion could be realistically completed to meet all of the ADU design standards if the applicant were to wall off the area that I have indicated in blue on the large floor plans and create an exterior door to the stairwell in one of the walls that I have outlined in green. Staff feels that by allowing the interior passage to remain between the converted studio/workshop area and the stairwell to the ADU, that the intendled privacy and general livability of the unit will be diminished. Having the resident of the ADU unit have to enter their unit through the proposed workshop area does not promote the livability of the unit. Staff does not feel that the criteria to vary the ADU design standards have been met. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the proposed application to vary the ADU design standards at 505 Sneaky Lane. ik ~ I Ce V~ r1l ecl -e ~ U/lQ; r A~pudl @!iJ R ~60 to Pf 2- /)J)~wJ(?i5 tOVl fh~/ \/ i~iJ~~w ~< \---\0AVl ~ if'^'\/ ~t:1C\ct ~\','j \~vQ,~~ \ JcC CVP~f'- 1"'\ n I , jz:r- m~ E"JI: c g ~ -,soL. "'0 cJ'11 '..0 11:2" / .5) ~ b"1 ..:.. ~~ E.. c;> !!.. ~ ~ ~ ,.... 8~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -:pC - " 0 ""- / U1 \ ~ be --oG"- : ) C"\V' 25'-~ I \. ~ T' 0 Z It:>'-o" 1'-11 6'-01/4' 21-lll'u ~ _;2I-af" / /- ,. 'I:. ~ Ck; ~ ! / ....., (Q) ".. " "'--'., // '\ \ Z [-! Q' / ~ ::t:: J: @ ~~ () ij is i'- 11\) I ! ~ :& . ~4 ~ ij !~ @ I ~., U\ 6 . J:- ~~ ,// ~ ~-'\ ~x' !Q~ ~ rn U~ aBed ~-' !WdPp:e riel I ~o'o~-das ! L6L9 S~6 OL6 l'cnnJOSUOO :AS +uaS fJ ~ ! r'\ , J ROSE ALLAN V PATTERSON F AMIL Y 'u,UST HIRSCH TOM & MAUREEN 580 CEMETERY LN #1 ONE EXECUTIVE BLVD PO BOX 8110 ASPEN, CO 81611 YONKERS, NY 10701 ASPEN, CO 81612 WERNER SARAH R RESIDENCE COSNIAC JOSEPH TRUST COSNIAC ANNELIESE HUTT POBOX 503 221 LOSOYA SUITE 5B BELLEVUE, W A SAN ANTONIO, TX 78205 STARODOJ BETSY HARNETT WANGER LEAH JOY ZELL & I B H PROPERTY TRUST STARODOJ THOMAS S II RALPH HARRIS IRVING B TRUSTEE PO BOX 2298 1540 LAKESHORE DR #14N 2 N LA SALLE ST STE 400 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHICAGO, IL 60610 CHICAGO, IL 60602 ASPEN VISTAS VENTURE CAMP ROBERT C MASS ANN MD C/O RALPH & LEAH WANGER CURLEE CYNTHIA A AS 400 W MAIN STE 200 1540 N LAKE SHORE DR TENANTS IN COMMON ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60610 PO BOX 692 ASPEN, CO 81612 NEWMAN JOEL KELTNER DONALD H 355 OCEAN BLVD KELTNER VIRGINIA P GOLDEN BEACH, FL 33160 12100 WILSHIRE BLVD #730 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 CITY OF ASPEN MOSLE PAULA M VANDEMOERHH 10/24 130 S GALENA ST 6125 WESTWICK 1755 MONACO PKWY ASPEN, CO 81611 DALLAS, TX 75205 DENVER, CO 80220 V ANDEMOER H H 10/24 1755 MONACO PKWY DENVER, CO 80220 LOUD H MONTGOMERY & PAULA PO BOX 11660 ASPEN, CO 81612 SHARP DESIGNS INCORPORATED 936 WEST FRANCIS ASPEN, CO 81611 HOL Y CROSS ELECTRIC ASSN - ER076 PROPERTY TAX DEPT DRAWER 2150 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 FERNANDEZ ERIN L 315 E HYMAN AVE STE 305 ASPEN, CO 8161 I HOWER DALE 43995 HWY 82 ASPEN, CO 81611 SNOOK GARRY & SHARON POBOX 10000 ASPEN, CO 81612 KEILIN KIM MILLER PO BOX 10064 ASPEN, CO 81612 MADSEN GEORGE W JR MADSEN CORNELIA G 93 I W FRANCIS ST ASPEN, CO 8161 I BEN-HAMOO PATRICE CONYERS PO BOX 2902 ASPEN, CO 81612 ent..,~Y : consortium ; AUG-24-200l FRI 09:44 ~ 970 92::> ti/8/; Aug-~4-UI 11.....IJ-l,IVI, FAX N~' ,0:,':::1.... .......... P. 01/01 , CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNI!R: PROJECT: REl'RESRNT A TIVE: OWNER: TYl'EOF APPT.lCATlON: lJE.OSCRTPT10N: James Lindt, 920-5104 DATE: 8/24/01 SOS Sneaky Lane 1t111y Dup?s Dob Camp Onc Step- Plroming and Zoning Commission Public Hearing Special Review for interior doono ADU. Applicant wishes to redllce lbc size nfthe ADU tbat currently exists and put an interior door into the studio from the ADU. land Use Code Section(s) 26.430 Special Review 26.520 Aecessory Dwelling Units 26.520. 080 (0) Special Review for variance from ADU DesIgn Standards Review by: Publie Hearing: Referral Agencies: Planning Fees: Referrlll Agency fees: TctalDeposit: Planning and Zoning Commission Ves $180 Housing $500 Dcposit for 2.5 hours of staff planller time $680 To apply, 5ubmit the following InfOnTIeUon: I. Prnof of ownership 2. Signed fee agreement 3. Applicant's name, address and telepllone number in a letter signed by tile applleaflt which .ialcs the name, address and telephollc number of!hc representative 3ulbori7.cd to act on behalf of the applicant. 4. Street address and lcgal description oCthe parcel on which dcvelopmel1t CI propos,~d to OCC\lr, col\sisling of a cllrrent certificate from a title insurancc CO'11pany, or attorncy J icensed to praellc(: in tho Stale nf Colorado, listing Ine names ofall owners of tho propert)', and all ITlOl'tgages,judgmcnU, liens, easemcnts, contracts llnd agreements alTecting the paroel. and dcmonstratinc!ho owner's right to apply for the Development AIlPlieation. S. Toul deposit for review of the application 6. !Q..Copies of the complctc application packet and maps. HPC" 12: PZ= 10; GMC= PZ+S; CC-7; Referral Agencies = l/ea.; Planning Starr- J 7, An 8 112" by 11" vicinity map localing the pareel within the City nf Aspen. S. Site map showing pJacemi:nt of improvement 9. Existing and Proposed ADU Floor Plans 10. Additional matorials as required by the specific review. Please refer to the application paekeL for specific submiltal requirements nr to the codo 5eCtions noled above, 11. A wrilten description of the proposal and an expJan3tlon In written. graphic, or model form oehnw the proposed development complies with Lho review standards relevant to the devclopmelll applje~tion. Please include cxisting conditions as well as proposed. Disc19i1nt:r: Th~ fo<<::goinS summary i$ advisory in. nature only slld is not binding on the City. The summary is based on Cllrrl!'nt :zonil1g~ which is ,ubject to change In the future, and upon factual r.pn:~cnl1llions that mayor may not be ..cuntc. 'It,e 9\lnlmary does not create a legill or vesLcd dght.