The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.610 S West End St.A016-02Gant Insubstantial PUD Amendment 610 S. West End Street CASE NUMBER A016-02 PARCEL ID # 2737-182-67014 CASE NAME Gant Insubstantial PUD Amendment PROJECT ADDRESS 610 S. West End Street PLANNER Sarah Oates CASE TYPE Insubstantial PUD Amendment OWNER/APPLICANT Gant Condominium Association REPRESENTATIVE Alan Richman DATE OF FINAL ACTION 3/5/02 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION Aparoved BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 3/13/02 BY J. Lindt { CASE NAME:l PROJ ADDRd OWN/APP: Gant Condominium REP: Alan Richman FEES DUE: Through Buildir MTG DATE REV BODY PH REMARKS CLOSED: I`- f�,,, 13Y PLAT SUBMITD: PLAT (BK,PG): ...,PLNR:' Sarah Oates E TYP: Insubstantial PUD Amendment STEPS:l DATE OF FINAL AC' CITY COUNCIL$ PZ: BOA: DRAC: !I ADMIN: MEMORANDUM TO: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer S� RE: Gant Condominiums —Insubstantial PUD Amendment DATE: February 25, 2002 SUMMARY: Alan Richman, representing the Gant Condominiums, owner, is requesting an insubstantial amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). The applicant has submitted a building permit to construct an elevator addition to Building D of the complex. The Gant Condominiums were approved as a Planned Unit Development in the early 1970s and several modifications have been made since that time. Building D is currently the only building on the property that does not have an elevator. Staff has reviewed this proposed amendment and recommends administrative approval by the Director. APPLICANT: Gant Condominiums, Owner. LOCATION: 610 S. West End Street. ZONING: R-15 (L) PUD. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Insubstantial amendments to an approved PUD may be approved by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section 26.445.100(A). STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." The application is Exhibit "B." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Community Development Director approve this Insubstantial PUD Amendment to allow the construction of an elevator on Building D of the complex. APPROVAL: I hereby approve this Insubstantial Amendment to allow the construction of an elevator on Building D of the complex. Date ; D� J Ann Woods, Community Develop ent irector ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application 2 Exhibit A Review Criteria Insubstantial PUD Amendment. 1. A change in the use or character of the development. Staff Finding: With this proposed amendment, the use and intensity remains the same as approved. The change does not alter the character of the development. 2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land. Staff Finding: The proposal substantially meets this requirement. Please see the applicant's response to this standard. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. Staff Finding: Trip generation and demand for public infrastructure are not affected by this change. 4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space. Staff Finding: The proposal substantially meets this requirement. Please see the applicant's response to this standard. 5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading space. Staff Finding: The applicant is not requesting an amendment to the existing or required number of parking spaces. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements. Staff Finding: The applicant is not proposing changes to right-of-way widths. 7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. Staff Finding: There is no increase in the gross leasable floor area. 8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development. Staff Finding: The applicant is not proposing a change in the residential density. 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. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does require an alteration to the dimensional requirements as established in the PUD. '144414t Ri,JL. Tex 3613 ,44Ae44 a &ft a o 81612 February 21, 2002 P"sel';1ax (970) 920-1125 Ms. Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: GANT CONDOMINIUMS APPLICATION FOR PUD AMENDMENT Dear Sarah, I represent the Gant Condominium Association, Inc. (hereinafter, "the applicant"). The applicant has submitted a building permit application to the City to construct an elevator addition to the D Building. During the course of your review of that application for compliance with the Land Use Regulations, you determined that an application for a PUD Amendment needed to be processed before you could sign off on the building permit. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with that PUD Amendment application. Following are the applicant's responses to the standards by which the Community Development Director may authorize an insubstantial amendment to a PUD, as found in Section 26.445.090 A of the Code. The following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment. 1. A change in the use or character of the development. Response: The Gant is a multi -family accommodations development. No change to the existing character of this development will occur as a result of the addition of the elevator. 2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land. Response: John Baker of Baker Fallin Architects has calculated the existing footprint of all of the buildings at the Gant and has found the site coverage to be approximately 58,439 sq. ft. Since the total land area of the Gant is 240,588 sq. ft., approximately 24.3% of the site is presently covered with buildings. The proposed elevator would add approximately 60 sq. ft. to this footprint. The total site coverage after the elevator is built would still be approximately 24.3%. Ms. Sarah Oates February 21, 2002 Page Two 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. Response: The addition of an elevator to the D Building will have no effect on traffic generation, or create any demands for public facilities. 4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space. Response: Baker Fallin has also calculated the existing amount of open space at the Gant and has found that approximately 48.4% of the site (116,427 sq. ft.) is open space. The proposed elevator would not be built in open space; rather it would remove an existing parking space. However, the applicant intends to replace this parking space, by eliminating an open area of approximately 50 sq. ft., to install 2 new parking spaces. This minimal reduction in open space will remove far less than 3% of the existing open space. 5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading space. Response: As noted above, parking on the property will not be decrease; it will increase by 1 space. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements. Response: No such reduction will occur as part of this project. 7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. Response: No such increase will be caused by this project. 8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development. Response: No change in density will occur as part of this project. 9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting a variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. Response: The applicant is not aware of any condition or representation associated with the original approval which would be affected by this proposal. Ms. Sarah Oates February 21, 2002 Page Three As a final note, I would point out that I have not included in this application any of the typical land use application attachments, such as proof of the ownership of the property, as I assume that you have this information as part of the building permit application. As you requested, I have provided a letter from the applicant authorizing me to submit this application on their behalf. If there is anything else you require, please do not hesitate to contact me or Molly Campbell, the General Manager of the Gant Condominiums. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES A aw 0 Z • - a Alan Richman, AICP EXHIBIT # 1 Ms. Sarah Oates Zoning Enforcement Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: GANT CONDOMINIUMS APPLICATION FOR PUD AMENDMENT Dear Ms. Oates, The Gant Condominium Association, Inc. hereby authorizes Alan Richman Planning Services to act as its designated representative with respect to the application for PUD Amendment being submitted to your office for its property, located at 610 West End Street in Aspen. Alan Richman is authorized to submit this application on our behalf. He is also authorized to represent us in meetings with the City of Aspen staff. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this application, please do so through Mr. Richman, whose address and telephone number are included in the land use application. LintflCofni'djoini m Association, Inc. Molly Cam, General Manager 610 West End Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-5000