Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNotes for 1175 Doolittle Circle1 Introduce Self & Applicant • Second Reading of Ordinance 24, Series of 2015 • Applicant is requesting a Minor Amendment to a Project Review and 8040 Greenline Review for the Castle Ridge Affordable Housing PD • Location: So. of Aspen Valley Hospital, W. of Castle Creek Rd. • Zoning – R-15 w/PD overlay • 8 MF buildings on site. • No formal PD approval – Code says in absence of site-specific approval dimensions indicated on approved plat considered to be approved dimensional standards. o Approximately 64,251 sq. ft. Applicant’s Request: • PD Amendment - floor area increase of 988 sf • To construct a new maintenance equipment storage shed o Near rear of site o Btwn Buildings F & G • Currently two small sheds w/accompanying decks & fence at this location (323 sf) o At first reading gave impression that these may not have been legally built  Good authority this was built legally… etc. • Current sheds not large enough to accommodate storage needs for site. • Site visit by staff – equipment located outside of fenced-in area o Safety hazard, unsightly Must meet standards of review criteria • 8040 Greenline & Minor Amendment to a Project Review Approval 8040 – Generally P&Z review First reading mistakenly said this was reviewed/meeting min Not the case: Code allows for reviews to be combined • At 1st Reading Council requested more information in staff’s memo re: 8040 Greenline • 8040 Greenline: o Applies to properties above 8,040’ in elevation o Intention: impact of development on natural environment, o specifically natural watershed & surface runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce potential for avalanche, unstable slope, rockfall & mudslides, minimize disturbance to existing terrain and natural features. o Site & plans reviewed by both Planning & Engineering Staff for determination of meeting criteria  Site is primarily flat, suitable for development 2  Development is compatible with terrain in this location  Water runoff mitigated with existing drainage swale  No significant adverse effects anticipated to the natural watershed, soil erosion.  No reason to think this would negatively impact the City’s air quality.  Shed’s construction requires no additional roadways or infrastructure to parcel.  Any necessary grading to be limited to area already disturbed by existing structures & roadway.  No retaining walls proposed, will limit disturbance to terrain, vegetation & natural features.  Staff finds the criteria to be met. • Minor Amendment to a Project Review: Criteria focus is on the general concept for development, such as land suitability and compatibility of development. o Site suitability: ground is generally level,  proposed shed does not interfere w/sloped grade at rear of parcel o Shed is oriented towards existing paved parking lot, is unobstructed & accessible to emergency and service vehicles. o Proposed building will reflect style of residences in color and materials,  proposed as one-story with gabled roof,  reach height of 16’ 3”  Subordinate to residences  Under max height of 25’ • Engineering has found no real concerns with application at this time. o As is typical for new development, the applicant will need to submit a drainage report prior to receipt of building permit and o May be required to clean out the existing drainage swale if needed  to ensure proper drainage on-site. • Staff finds criteria to be met. • Staff Recommendation: o Approval of application o Condition: create & record a new plat that will legitimize the structure/increase in floor area on site.