Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Lacey Duplex.1977MEMO TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Aspen P&Z Commission Planning Staff (HC) Lacey Duplex--Exemption from PUD requirements and Stream Margin Review March 17, 1977 This is a request by Mr. Joe Lacey to construct a duplex on 9,000 sq. ft. of land located at the intersection of Park Avenue and Hopkins St. The property is zoned R-6 PUD which allows a duplex on 9,000 sq. ft. A single family dwelling is exempted from PUD review but not a duplex. Mr. Lacey is re- questing an exemption to the PUD requirements. The project is also located within 100 feet of the high water line of the Roaring Fork and the applicant is required to process a stream margin review permit. The Planning Office recommends approval of the stream margin review and exemption to the PUD requirements subject to the following conditions: A detailed landscaping plan be developed locating trees and vegetation to be preserved along the stream bank and detailing additional planting along Park Avenue. The project be developed in conformance with the building envelope plans as presented with the application to include a common access point to Park Avenue. 3. The building structures be located (as shown) out of the standard flOod plane area. Information be provided satisfactory to the City Engineer establishing the right to build over the "buri~ ditch" as shown on the site plan. o Adequate measures be taken during construction to protect the stream b~k from erosion, and the stream from additional sedSmentation. 6. Section 24-6.3 (c) (2) concerning review criteria for stream margin review requires the following: -1- MEMO Lacey Duplex page 2. (cont.) '!In the event there is a trail designated by an approved trail plan within the development site, such trail shall be dedicated for public use". We recommend dedicating a public trail easement through the property along the stream side, the precise location of which to be determined co- operatively with Mr. Lacey and the City. The property is adjacent to the pedestrian trail bridge across Hopkins St., and is readily capa- ble of integration with a trail system along the Roaring Fork River connecting into Herron Park and the Rio Grande property. A site plan will be available at the meeting for your review. HC/mfw theodore I. mularz AIA, architects warren I. palmer associate 24 February 1977 Mr. Hal Clark, Assistant Planner Aspen/Pftkin County Planning Dept. 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 Ret LACY DUPLEX N.W. Corneb Park and Hopkins Dear Ha I: Thank you for meeting with me on Wednesday, February 23rd, to discuss the above project. Ther plans and improvement survey I left with you are of a schematic nature but clearly outline the scope of the project and should be adequate for review purposes by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Since the site is located on the Roaring Fork River in the R-6/PUD Overlay District, ! would appreciate a review by the P & Z on March 1st for the following reaspns= 1. Stream Margin Review 2. PUD Exemption in accordance with "Sec. Mandatory PUD. 3. Condominiumization 24-8/1 Our site plan clearly indicates that the proposed building is Outside the Standard Project Flood Line as established from Plate 11, June 1973, U. S. Cor~s of Engineers Study of Roaring Fork River based on elevations. Further, the existing vegetation below the flood line wil be preserved resulting in little if any impast'on ~he property below the flood line along the river. We also feet that the proposed development o¢ a two family dwelling on a 9,000 square foot lot does meet the objectives of planned unit development for the following reasons= The new structure would have little impact on the surrounding neighborhood a ready almost fully developed with numerous duplex dwellings. All criteria of the R-6 zone such as height, off- street parking, setbacks, curb cuts, etc. have been met. The access will be by one single 18 foot drive- way requiring a curb cut of tbs same size. Mr. Hat Clark -2 24 February 1977 Access is from Park Avenue, a street well-maintained by the City of ASPen. All utilities, water, sewer, power and natural gas are available at the site ~nd ar~ currently serving a small sub-standard d~l.ll~ WHi~ Wiii Se removed. We are willing to abide by the general building height, design and envelope as presented in the draw- ings. Further, those areas above the f!OO¢ be landscaped adequately to enhance not only the building but the character of the neighborhood as well. tn addition to my attendance, Mr. Lacy, the property owner, will make himself avai able to meet with th? Planning and Zoning CommiSSion on ,abOve items personally. Your. assistance is appreciated. Sincerely, Theodore L. Mul~rz, AIA tlm/m cc: Mr. Joe M. Lacy Regular Meeting__ RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 100 Leaves ___Aspen Plann~ing and Zoning March 22, 1977 Lacey Duplex - Stream Margin Review and PUD Exemption Roger Hunt moved to approve the stream margin review and the PUD exemption fOr the Lacey Duplex to be lo- cated at the Corner of Hopkins and Park Ave. conditioned on the comments of the City Engineer, the conditions of the Planning Office memo dated March 17, 1977, and access as outlined in the preliminary drawings submit- ted to the Planning Office. The conditions of the Planning Office memo are as follows: 1. A detialed landscaping plan be developed locating trees and vegetation to be pre- served along the stream bank and detailing additional planting along Park Avenue, 2. T~e project be developed in conformance with the building envelope plans as pre- sented with the application to include a common access point to Park Avenue, 3. The building structures be located out of the flood plain area, 4. That information be provided satisfactory to the CityEngineer establishing the right to build over the "buried ditch" as shown on the site plan, That adequate measures be taken during con- struction to protect the stream bank from erosion, and the stream from additional sed- mentation. The motion was further conditioned upon the applicant's agreement to allow for a 15~ trail easement along the stream side of teh property. Any changes to the access would negate the motion. Kienast seconded All in favor, motion carried. ' Secretary to P&Z