Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.Aspen Mtn Monkarsh 622 Galena.A25-97Aspen Mtn/ Monkarsh 622 S. Galena -. 2737-182-90 U Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970)920-5090 City Land Use Application Fees:a o 00113-63850-041 sd Deposit _ -63855-042 Flat Fee -63860-043 HPC -63885-268 Public Right -of -Way -63875-046 Zoning & Sign Permit -MROI I Use Tax 10000-67100-383 Park Dedication 15000-63050480 AH Commercial 15000-63065482 AH Residential County Land Use Application Fees: OO113-63800-033 Deposit -63805-034 Flat Fee -63820-037 Zoning -63825-038 Board of Adjustment Referral Fees: 00113-63810-035 County Engineer 00115-63340-163 City Engineer 62023-63340-190 Housing 00125-63340-205 Environmental Health 00113-63815-036 County Clerk 00113-63812-212 Wildlife Officer Sales: 00113-6383"39 County Code -69000-145 Copy Fees _ Other 'Total , a o Name: yiV M4A1,6jcJ 11AY Date:VJ&.-Check: �y Address: Project. .5 D 6 Aly& «I7 Ej/&V-/ V Case No: — Phone: D, No. of Copies CA OAD SUMMARY SHEET - CITY ►SPEN DATE RECEIVED: 4/26/97 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID # 2737-182-90- CASE # A25-97 STAFF: 4- ,& iZ13 r PROJECT NAME: Monkarsh Insub. Amend./Aspen Mtn. PUD Project Address: 622 S. Galena St. 64 �� 2 APPLICANT: Jerrold & Joyce Monkarsh Address/Phone: 622 S. Galena St. OWNER: same Address/Phone: REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Wells Address/Phone: 602 Midland Park Place 925-8080 RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address: FEES DUE FEES RECEIVED PLANNING $450 PLANNING $450.. # APPS RECEIVED I ENGINEER $0 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED I HOUSING $0 HOUSING $ GIS DISK RECEIVED: ENV HEALTH $0 ENV HEALTH $ CLERK $ CLERK $ TYPE OF APPLICATION TOTAL $450. TOTAL RCVD $450. Staff Approval REFERRALS: ❑ City Attorney ❑ City Engineer (DRC) ❑ Zoning ❑ Housing ❑ Environmental Health ❑ Parks DATE REFERRED: ❑ Aspen Fire Marshal ❑ City Water ❑ City Electric ❑ Clean Air Board ❑ Open Space Board ❑ Other: INITIALS: APPROVAL: O • solution # St Plat Recorded: CLOSED/FILED DATE: 4130 INITIALS: �J ROUTE TO: =:!:t uric. ❑ CDOT ❑ ACSD ❑ Holy Cross Electric ❑ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas ❑ Aspen School District ❑ Other: DATE DUE: Date: Date: Book Page MEMORANDUM TO: Stan Clauson, City Community Development Director FROM: Sara Thomas, Zoning Officer AP P RE: Insubstantial Amendment to the Aspen Mountain l t& JNIM� or enclosure of the entryway in Unit # 2 of the Galena Place �T F v9yM K. located at 622 S. Galena Street. 0MlgVJJAV DV ,W DATE: April 17, 1997 --------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The owner of Galena Place Unit # 2 wishes to amend the Aspen Mountain PUD so that the entryway into their unit can be enclosed for safety and privacy purposes. The existing covered entryway is a T-shaped subgrade space that is enclosed on three sides. The applicant proposes to move the existing entry door out to the line of the west facade and enclose the remaining openings on either side of the new door location. FINDINGS: The Galena Place Townhomes were approved as part of the First Amended Aspen Mountain PUD in October, 1988. The amended PUD states that Galena Place is to be comprised of 4 three -bedroom residential units containing an aggregate of not more than 12,000 square feet of floor area. Staff has reviewed the building permit file for this project and finds that the entryway areas for the buildings were included in the original floor area calculations. Therefore, staff concludes that enclosing the entryway area will not increase the existing floor area of the structures. Section 26.84.080 of the Aspen Municipal Land Use Code states that: A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final development plan may be authorized by the Community Development Director. The following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment: 1. A change in the use or character of the development. 2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. 4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space. 5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading space. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements. 7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. 8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development. 9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting of a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans for the entryway enclosure of Galena Place Townhome Unit # 2 and finds that the above criteria have been satisfied. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Community Development Director approve the insubstantial amendment to the Aspen Mountain PUD for the enclosure of the entryway of Galena Place Townhomes Unit # 2, finding that the criteria in Section 26.84.070 (A) have been met. I hereby approve the Insubstantial Amendment for the Aspen Mountain PUD for the enclosure of the entryway for Unit # 2 of the Galena Place Townhomes as represented in the attached application documents. Stan Clau on, ity mmunity Dev ment Director Date �\ �F PSPEN Joseph Wells Land Planning, Inc. 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: 970.925.8080 Facsimile: 970.925.8275 March 28, 1997 Mr. Stan Clauson, Director City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Stan: As you know, I recently requested, on behalf of the owner of Unit Four at Galena Place, an Insubstantial Amendment to the prior PUD approvals for this project to enclose the lower level entry. You approved the enclosure on January 21, 1997 (see memo attached as Exhibit A). Following your approval, the owner of Unit Four began discussions with the Homeowner's Association to obtain required architectural approvals from the other owners. It quickly became apparent that the other owners had had security problems similar to those experienced by the owner of Unit Four which are related to the entry area of their units. Apparently, there is prior correspondence in your files from some of these owners regarding these problems. All of the owners would like to seek approval to enclose their entry areas. The owners have gotten together and have now retained Larry Yaw, who designed the project originally, to prepare drawings for a consistent architectural solution for the enclosure. I am providing the relevant drawings as a part of each owner's application for review under the insubstantial amendment procedures (see drawings attached as Exhibit B). This application is fled on behalf of Mervyn and Jeanette Mandelbaum, the owners ofQrit Two„the South unit in the north duplex. Because of topography, Unit Two does not have an opening in the south facade. Therefore, the only opening in any of the surrounding walls at the entry level of Unit One is the T-shaped opening of less than 90 sq. ft. in the west facade. The owners' letter consenting to the application is attached as Exhibit C. A signed Agreement to Pay Form is attached as Exhibit D. The four Galena Place residences are three -level units in a duplex configuration, designed as detached blocks of two units each with few penetrations in the facades as they extend down to finished grade. The pedestrian entrance for each unit is on the lower level. Unit One and Unit Two make up the north duplex and Unit Three and Unit Four are located in March 28, 1997 Mr. Stan Clauson, Director Page two the south duplex. The entry level of the north duplex is 6.5 feet below that of the south duplex and three to nine feet below the elevation of the sloping sidewalk along the street. As one approaches the two units in the north duplex from the common entry walk, there are a total of 9 steps down to the entry level. To enter either unit, one passes underneath an overhanging balcony through the T-shaped opening into a covered but unenclosed space to approach the recessed entry wall. Because this exterior entry court has a low ceiling and because of the proximity of the existing retaining walls along the stairs leading down to the entry level (a 7 foot high wall separated from the facade by only 15 ft.), the experience of entering the unit is similar to descending down to a basement level. The covered entry areas for all of the units are all very sheltered and therefore encourage mischief. The owners wish to move the entry door out to the line of the facade and enclose the remaining openings on either side of the new door location, as illustrated on the attached drawings. This would have very little effect on the appearance of the unit, particularly when viewed from the street, because the depressed entry level is largely hidden from view from the street by the retaining walls in the foreground. As we discussed previously during the review of the application for Unit Four, with the possible exception of the final code standard, which does not permit the Planning Director to sign off on a change which is "inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or a further variation from the project's approved dimensional requirements", the enclosure of the opening in the west facade clearly complies with the standards for an insubstantial amendment under the provisions of Section 26.84.080 (A) of the Land Use Code, as discussed below. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final development plan may be authorized by the Community Development Director with the exception of the following changes discussed below: "1. A change in the use or character of the development." (No change is proposed). "2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land." (No change is proposed). March 28, 1997 Mr. Stan Clauson, Director Page three "I Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities." (No change is proposed). "4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space." (No change is proposed). "5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading space." (No change is proposed). "6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements." (No change is proposed). 7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings." (Not applicable to the proposal). "8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development." (No change is proposed). "9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements." The proposed enclosure is not inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval and does not require granting a further variation from the uses approved for the project. The only issue is whether it requires granting a further variation from the project's approved dimensional requirements. This discussion is further limited only to the issue of external FAR floor area. March 28, 1997 Mr. Stan Clauson, Director Page four In considering this issue during the review of the previous application for Unit Four, it was Sarah Thomas's conclusion after reviewing the project files, that the entry areas had previously been included in FAR calculations when the original building permit application was under consideration. Therefore, enclosing the area does not result in an increase in the project's FAR. In addition, I previously calculated the increase in FAR square footage for Unit Four under a "worst -case" interpretation and then made various arguments as to why the worst -case should not apply. For the sake of discussion, I am repeating the "worst -case" calculations for the other units, as well as my prior arguments. The entry level of the unit is considered a floor which is partially subgrade. To determine the square footage of the entry level which should be counted in FAR calculations, it is therefore necessary to first perform "a calculation of the total volume of the story which is above and which is below grade", to establish the percentage of the area of the story which shall be included in floor area calculations. This calculation "shall be made by determining the total percentage of the perimeter wall area of the story which is above natural or finished grade, whichever is lower, which shall be multiplied by the total floor area of the subject story, and the resulting total shall be that area which is included in the floor area calculation." The "worst -case" interpretation would be to define those areas outside of the "interior" entry wall which are not presently enclosed, but which are inside the exterior facade of the unit, as presently being exempt from FAR calculations and to also define these same areas, once enclosed, as counting completely in FAR calculations (subject to the language above regarding partially subgrade space). Therefore, I have performed the required calculations in this way - first, by treating the "interior" entry wall as the existing exterior wall of the level ("Existing FAR Square Footage" in Table One) and secondly, by treating the perimeter wall of the building as the exterior wall ("Proposed FAR Square Footage" in Table One). The existing enclosed mechanical room which is located on the outside corner of the unit adds some complication to these calculations. For the sake of discussion, I have calculated the volume of the level at the entry wall and have added the additional square footage of the exterior mechanical room to the total square footage of the level to determine March 28, 1997 Mr. Stan Clauson, Director Page five the FAR square footage under the existing square footage alternative. The conclusion of these calculations is that, under the worst -case interpretation, the enclosure of the entry area would increase the FAR square footage of Unit Two by 86.78 sq. ft., as indicated on the attached Table One. The reason that the "worst -case" increase in FAR square footage is so slight is because more of the exterior wall is partially subgrade when the perimeter walls are used for the calculation, so the percentage of the total square footage counting in FAR is less. In addition to your conclusion that the space was previously included in FAR calculations at the time of building permit issuance, other arguments can be made under the language of the current Code that the space proposed to be enclosed should already be counted in FAR calculations and that therefore the enclosure does not increase the FAR square footage of the unit. First, the current Code language strongly implies that, when an area is covered and almost completely enclosed, it should be counted to some degree in FAR calculations. For instance, covered porches are exempt from FAR calculations, but the area proposed to be enclosed on Unit One does not comply with the definition of a "porch" because it is not "open on at least two sides to the outdoors" ("Porches are defined as uninsulated, unheated areas under a roof, bounded on at least one side by the exterior wall of a living space and open on at least two sides to the outdoors with or without screens."). The entry area is therefore not exempt from inclusion in FAR calculations because it cannot be considered a "porch". Further, the opening in the west facade of the entry area is only approximately one third of the area of that wall and therefore does not comply with the definition of a "loggia" because it is not "at least 50% open to the outdoors on one side" ("Loggias are defined as an unheated area under a roof, over a living space, and at least 50% open to the outdoors on one side with or without screens."). Therefore the entry area is not eligible to be calculated in FAR calculations at the reduced percentage of 0.5 FAR. It would be difficult to conclude, it seems to me, that an area which is even more enclosed than a "loggia" should not be counted in FAR at all. Finally, I previously argued that the intent of limiting square footage through FAR restrictions is primarily two -fold. The first is to limit the mass of the structure as viewed by the public and the second is to limit March 28, 1997 Mr. Stan Clauson, Director Page six the intensity of the use of the structure. I would suggest that, in the case of the Galena Place project, the enclosure of the covered entry area will have no effect on either of these two considerations. First, the existing opening provides no meaningful relief in the existing perimeter facade to passersby. Secondly, the unit will remain a duplex dwelling unit, so the intensity of use does not increase. I am attaching additional photos of the project to illustrate the existing site conditions relating to Unit Two, as well as the new architectural drawings illustrating the architectural solution approved by the homeowners to better describe the architectural intent. A check for the filing fee of $450 for review under the Insubstantial Amendment procedure is also attached. Please let me know if you need additional information. S}ftcer ly, Joseph Wells, AICP TABLE ONE EXTERNAL FAR CALCULATIONS, GALENA PLACE UNIT TWO Second Floor Elevation: 98.13 Ft. Basement Elevation: 88.83 Ft. Floor to Floor Height: 9.30 Ft. Existing FAR Square Footage: % Above Area of Wall Natural or Length Mr. Area of Above Fin. Grade of Wall to Mr. Wall Fin. Grade 1. West Facade 100.00% 50.25 9.30 467.33 467.33 2. South Facade 0.00% 16.17 9.30 150.38 0.00 3. East Facade 74.09% 33.00 9.30 306.90 227.38 4. North Facade 76.60% 38.75 9.30 360.38 276.05 1284.99 970.76 (75.55%) Existing Floor Area X % of Floor Above Fin Grade = FAR Floor Area 843.48 SF X 75.55% = 637.25 SF Proposed FAR Square Footage: % Above Area of Wall Natural or Length Mr. Area of Above Fin. Grade of Wall to Mr. Wall Fin. Grade 1. West Facade 79.10% 29.00 9.30 269.70 213.33 2. South Facade 0.00% 55.08 9.30 512.24 0.00 3. East Facade 74.09% 33.00 9.30 306.90 227.38 4. North Facade 76.60% 47.50 9.30 441.75 338.38 1530.59 779.09 (50.90%) Proposed Floor Area X % of Floor Above Fin Grade = FAR Floor Area 1422.45 SF X 50.90% = 724.03 SF 144 loll 0 � Ji 1 . *4'rAAAK%wMk� .1 Pi , fit► 'r ._ f. - � r.. °T r .: A- _,� •. � "�.�/� _s•- , 'mac ti ►y ::, y s,� - 1, � �. VQ1 i mot: 'y, ' : • OWWAB6. OPENING IN LOWER LEVEL OF WEST FACADE VIEWED FROM LOWER WALK LOOKING SOUTHEAST m EXHIBIT A NIVNIORAND [ h1 TO: Stan Ciauson. City Community Development Direc.or FROM: Sara Thomas. Zoning Officer RE: Insubstantial Amendment to the Aspen Mountain PUD to allow for enclosure of the entryway in limit =4 of the Galena Place Townhomes. located at 621' S. Galena Street. DATE: January 21. 1997 SUNL ARY: The owner of Galena Place Unit =`4 wishes to amend the Aspen Mountain PUD so that the entrytivay into their unit can be enclosed for safety and privacy purposes. The existing covered entrnvay is a T-shaped subgrade space that is enclosed on three sides. The applicant proposes to move the existing entry door out to the line of the west facade and enclose the remaining openings on either side of the new door location. FINDPiGS: The Galena Place Townhomes were approved as part of the First Amended Aspen Mountain PL-D in October, 1988. The amended PUD states that Galena Place is to be comprised of 4 three -bedroom residential units containing an aggregate of not more than 12,000 square feet of floor area. Staff has reviewed the building permit file for this project and finds that the entryway areas for the buildinvs were included in the original floor area calculations. Therefore, staff concludes that enclosing the entrvwav area will not increase the existing floor area of the structures. Section 26.84.080 of the.Aspen Municipal Land Use Code states that: A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final development plan may be authorized by the Community Development Director. The following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment: 1. A change in the use or character of the development. 2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. 4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space. 5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading space. 6..A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements. kn increase of greater than two (_) percent in the approved gross leasable door area of commercial buildin_s. 3. an increase by ;reater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development. 9. anv change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting of a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. Staff has reviewed the proposed plans for the entryway enclosure of Galena Place Townhome Unit =, and finds that the above criteria have been satisfied. RECONVYIENDATION: Staff recommends that the Community Development Director approve the insubstantial amendment to the aspen Mountain PUD for the enclosure of the entryway of Galena Place Townhomes Unit Y 4. finding that the criteria in Section 26-84.070 (a) have been met. I hereby approve the Insubstantial amendment for the aspen Mountain PL:D for the enclosure of the entry -way for U nit 14 of the Galena Place Townhomes as represented in the attached application documents. ' N r� Sta'Cson. Eity Community Development Director ,G nFR- Date i EXISTING PLAN LINE OF BALCONI COTTLE M GRAY13I,A (�YAW �,' ARC111TEC � LTD 010 LAST IIVWAS ANTS, f0 AILII Iy970h!5-YA67 AVOW (111 S,LDR11,111XIV A, VA 'IVAHAV?IJ Inll •'v'1 I Iv' I 1 � I edr- :A8 NYYNO !31vos L6 ?�dW 81 03 'Nadsv "ON 133fOLd :31YO �aQ,/yr,:](1 IIS2IVXNOW N0I1'7^3-13 1N0ai:� VNI.LSIXM 3'1111 11TT1MTFfTTl1TTTTTTI - - ��- - L Iv_ i ul c� IL PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN TITLE: PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN `- ■� C0TTLE MONKAR�11 REMODEL DATE: PROJECT NO.: � �➢, GRAYI3I�:A1. YAW ASPEN, CO ��,� flfl� AR(I I FS -----�. SCALE: DRAIN BY: 1��1) yid" = 1'-0 JAB SIDCASTHIM Aw1� rD MGii 119M92'.lnvt ►19raTi:; 1716 71!C S:IIO!6l1 tv.,7(J0101 11911 0111BY 111U11 ISYA 01S Ql'I MVlk 'IV::IIIAW11.) - 11 .'v'! 1 1Vl I :AU NMYUU3'1VJ5 -- - 00 'N3dSV L6ZlVW81 ON 1�3fU11d 31YU 'I3QOW,.In IIS2IV>INOW NOIlV/�H1H 1NOzld dHSOdOZId 3"Illl 1 � III ? (1 III (1 IY FL C) I �Jfl (1 - III I '.: II III - - Illlllllllllllllf- II �d EXHIBIT C Mervyn & Jeanette Mandelbaum 1735 South Santa Fe Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90021 February 22, 1997 Mr. Stan Clauson Director of Community Development, City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Clauson: We are writing to you to confirm that we are the owners of Galena Place Condominium Unit 3, located at 618 South Galena Street, Aspen. Our letter is to confirm that we have authorized Joseph Wells Land Planning, Inc. to file on our behalf the attached application for an Insubstantial Amendment to the prior PUD approval for Lot 5 of the Aspen Mountain PUD/Subdivision, to permit the enclosure of the openings in the lower level facade as proposed on the drawings attached to the application. During the processing of this request, please contact Joe Wells at 925-8080 if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely yours, Mervyn Mandelbaum Jeanette Mandelbaum EXHIBIT D ASPENTITKIN CONLNfUNNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2 APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 53 (Series of 1995) establishes a fee structure for Planning applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it -is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties 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 APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Plannina 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. M �. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of SZ which is for hours of Planning staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review. 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 OF ASPEN B v : i lid `•_ �` St:lt'Clauson - Community Development Director 2 APPLICANT Dat i Z 4r— Mailina Address: