HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19940719
,'-
AGENDA
,
<".,~---
=============================--====================================
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
July 19, 1994, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
I. COMMENTS
commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II . I1INUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A.
Smith Conditional Use Review for
Dwelling Unit and 8040 Greenline
Lackner ..
an Accessory
Review, Mary
B. Zoline Rezoning, Leslie Lamont
C. Temporary Overlay to Reduce FAR, Leslie Lamont & Amy
Amidon
IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. KAJX Conditional Use Review for a Satellite Dish,
Leslie Lamont ...
B. Creektree SUbdivision/PUD Amendment, Mary Lackner
C. Independence Place SPA Designation and Conceptual
SPA Plan, Leslie Lamont (to be continued to
September 20, 1995)
V. ADJOURN
.. Height flags have been placed on the Smith property. Please
visit the site before the meeting.
,..,....---
... Story poles have been set up behind the Red Brick School
building. Please visit the site before the meeting.
,
~
.....k'.'....
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Smith 8040 Greenline Review and Conditional Use for an
Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit - Public Hearing
DATE: July 19, 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Smith 8 04 0
Greenline and Conditional Use for an approximately 1600 sq.ft.
addition that includes a 700 sq.ft. attached accessory dwelling
unit with conditions. This addition is proposed to be attached to
an existing 2800 sq.ft. residence.
APPLICANT: Bob and Glenda Smith.
LOCATION: 200 Park Circle, Sunny Park North Subdivision Lot 5.
ZONING: R-15A Moderate -Density Residential.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests 8040 Greenline Review
for an approximately 1600 sq.ft. addition to an existing residence.
The applicant is also seeking Conditional Use approval to build a
700 sq.ft. accessory dwelling unit within this proposed addition.
This unit is being provided voluntarily. The one bedroom accessory
dwelling unit will be approximately 699 net livable sq.ft. and will
be located above grade. This unit qualifies for a floor area
bonus, pursuant to Section 24-3-101.
The applicant submitted the application with the intent of
obtaining an access easement from the County to cross the County
owned Mascot Lode. Since this application was submitted on June
20th, the applicant has been unable to secure this easement. In
fact, the County has indicated that they most likely will not grant
an access easement to the applicant. Therefore, the applicant
submitted an amendment to the application on June 30th that assumes
the requested access easement will not be granted by the County.
Both the original and.amended application information, maps, and
elevations are included as Exhibit "A".
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The following referral comments are attached
to this memorandum:
ACSD - Exhibit "B"
Engineering Department - Exhibit "C"
Housing Office - Exhibit "D"
Parks Department - Exhibit "E"
Water Department - Exhibit "F"
STAFF COMMENTS: The Commission has the authority to review and
approve development applications for Conditional Uses and 8040
Greenline review pursuant to the standards of Sections 24-7-304 and
24-7-503 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
Conditional Use Review
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with - the intent of the zone district in which it is
proposed to be located; and
Response: The proposed dwelling unit has the potential to house
local employees, which is in compliance with the Aspen Area
Community Plan and the underlying zone district.
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture
of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development; and
Response: The accessory dwelling unit is compatible with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood, which consists of medium
density single family residences. The Siegel affordable housing
project, which consists of three dwelling units, was built on a
lot adjacent to this parcel. The unit will not be visible as a
distinct unit from the exterior of the residence or garage.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and
Response: The accessory dwelling unit will be completely contained
within the proposed addition. The location, size, and design
permit the occupant of the ADU privacy from the main residence.
The general design of the house is compatible with similar
development in this area. A total of eight parking spaces are
provided on -site (two within an attached garage), which is
adequate for the main residence and the ADU. None of the parking
spaces are directly visible from neighboring parcels. The proposed
ADU will have an exterior stairway which will access the entrance.
As per past P&Z concerns, a recommended condition of approval
requires that the unit be identified on building permit plans as
a separate dwelling unit requiring compliance with U.B.C. Chapter
35 for sound attenuation. The applicant has proposed a roof design
that will shed snow away from the ADU's entrance. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
Fa
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools; and
Response: All public utilities are adequate and in place
throughout the neighborhood and can accommodate the proposed
addition and ADU.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use; and °
Response: The applicant is voluntarily providing the ADU. It is
not required for mitigation. The applicant must file the
appropriate deed restrictions for resident occupancy, including a
six month minimum lease. Proof of recordation must be forwarded
to the Planning Office prior to issuance of any building permits.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Community Plan and
by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
Response: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and all other applicable conditional use standards.
8040 Greenline Review
The applicant received 8040 Greenline approval in 1986 when the
existing house was approved for development. The applicant is
required to obtain a new 8040 approval, since the previous approval
did not contemplate this addition. The Planning and Zoning
Commission has final authority on granting 8040 Greenline
approvals.'
1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be
located is suitable for development considering its
slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine
substance and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and
avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain
hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize
and revegetate the soils, or where necessary, cause them
to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to
the city.
Response: The site averages a 24% slope across the length of the
lot. A Geophysical and Geotechnical Subsidence Investigation was
prepared for this lot in 1986, for the original 8040 Greenline
review. The location of the proposed addition is identified as a
favorable area for development. The only portion of the property
3
15
which was not fully tested, the upper northeastern section, is not
proposed for any development. This lot is not encumbered by the
EPA superfund boundary.
The applicant will need to meet the engineering and structural
requirements of the May 1986 report by Western Engineers,' Inc.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant
adverse affect on the natural watershed runoff, `
drainage, soil erosion or have consequent , effects , on
water pollution. '
Response: The applicant has proposed installing perforated drain
tile to use as part of the drainage system. Staff does not believe
their will be any significant affect on the natural watershed,
drainage, soil erosion or water pollution as part of this proposed
development.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant
adverse affect on the air quality in the city.
Response: The applicant's proposal does not have a significant
impact on the air quality of the city.
4. The design and location of any proposed development,
road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the
parcel on which the proposed development is to be
located.
Response: The amended addition will tie into the existing upper
levels of the existing residence at about two feet higher than the
existing residence. This slight increase in height enables the
applicant to obtain greater views and solar exposure. This design
and location is compatible with the natural terrain of the site.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable,
disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land
features.
Response: The applicant has minimized grading as much as possible
so as not to disturb the natural terrain. All disturbed areas are
proposed to be revegetated with a native seed mix, potentilla,
choke cherry, and other mature shrubs to provide a natural
appearance.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize
the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain
open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic
resource.
Response: The placement of the ADU, within the proposed addition,
has been designed to be accessible from the main house or from the
4
existing driveway. The best alternative would be to obtain the
access easement across the Mascot Lode which would permit
additional privacy to the occupants of the ADU, provide fire
protection from above the residence, and to provide snow storage
for the existing road above this parcel. Either alternative
proposed by the applicant will not impact the scenic quality of
lower Smuggler mountain.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the
structure will be designed to blend into the open
character of the mountain.
Response: It appears from .the application materials that the
proposed addition will bring the residence close to it's maximum
allowed floor area of 4,648 sq.ft. (which includes the 250 sq.ft.
bonus) . The exact floor area has. not been calculated because staff
does not have the detailed drawings indicating the dimensions of
the addition proposed below grade.
Forty-seven percent of the addition's height will be no higher than
the existing residence. The portion of the addition that will be
higher than the existing residence is proposed to be approximately
two feet taller. Staff believes the applicant has minimized the
height and bulk of the building so that it will function well, yet
not impact the open space character of the mountain.
8. sufficient water pressure and other utilities are
available to service the proposed development.
Response: All utilities are presently serving the existing
residence. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District and Aspen Water
Department have indicated that they can serve the project, subject
to additional tap fees and connection charges.
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed
development, and said roads can be properly maintained.
Response: Adequate roads are available to the house and are
properly maintained.
10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed
development so as to ensure adequate access for fire
protection and snow removal equipment.
Response: Adequate ingress and egress is presently in place to the
residence. The applicant and staff prefer that the upper road be
used as the access point to the ADU, however the applicant is
working with the County to obtain an easement. Should the upper
access not be available, the single access will be adequate for
snow removal and fire protection.
11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
5
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails
Plan map is dedicated for public use.
Response: The 1986 8040 Greenline review for this parcel required
a trail easement be dedicated generally along the Salvation Ditch.
The easement was eliminated when the Siegel employee housing was
approved in 1992 by the driveway to this project Staff would like
the applicant to provide this trail easement across the property
as the Salvation Ditch is a primary trail corridor identified in
the AACP.
SUMMARY: The upper access across the Mascot Lode does not impact
steep slopes, grading or filling of the site. This driveway would
not create any visual scaring along the hillside since it follows
a relatively flat bench. The applicant's original plan proposed
this upper access so that there would be a one car garage provided
with the ADU and additional privacy for the occupants'of the ADU..
It is for these reasons that staff supports the upper access if an
easement can be obtained from the adjacent property owner. Staff
can also support the applicant's proposal without the upper access
road. In this alternative, the existing access road would be used
and residents of the new unit would access the unit along a walkway
next to the primary residence.
The fundamental design difference between the two applications is
the height of the proposed addition. The original application
proposes a roof line at the peak of the garage to be two feet
higher than the existing residence. The amended application
proposes a roof line of two feet higher than the existing residence
along the length of the proposed addition. Although the applicant
has not received a final determination from the County regarding
an access easement to the upper portion of his property, staff
believes that either alternative meets the 8040 Greenline review
requirements.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the
Smith 8040 Greenline and Conditional Use for an approximately 1600
sq.ft. addition that will contain a 700 net livable sq.ft. one
bedroom accessory dwelling unit subject to the following
conditions:
1. The owner shall submit appropriate deed restrictions to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority for approval. The
accessory dwelling unit shall be deed restricted to resident
occupancy with a minimum six month lease. Upon approval by
the Housing Authority, the Owner shall record the deed
restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's
Office.
2. Prior to issuance of any building permits, a copy of the
recorded deed restriction for the accessory dwelling unit must
be forwarded to the Planning Office.
6
N
3. The accessory dwelling unit shall be clearly identified as a
separate dwelling unit on building permit plans and shall
comply with U.B.C. Chapter 35 sound attenuation requirements.
4. During building permit plan review, the Zoning Enforcement
Officer shall make the final determination that the unit meets
the minimum size requirement of 300 sq.ft. net liveable as
defined in the Housing Authority Guidelines. The accessory
dwelling unit cannot be less than 300 sq.ft.
5. The kitchen within the accessory dwelling unit shall meet or
exceed the Housing Authority Guidelines for the definition of
a "kitchen."
6. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan to be reviewed
and approved by the Parks Department, prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
7. The applicant and staff shall reconfirm that a trail easement
has been dedicated along the Salvation Ditch as it crosses
this property.
8. The applicant shall comply with the engineering and structural
requirements of the May 1986 "Geophysical and Geotechnical
Subsidence Investigation for Lots 3 & 5 Sunny Park North
Subdivision," prior to the issuance of any building permits.
9. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the 8040 Greenline and
Conditional Use review for an approximately 1600 sq.ft. addition
for Lot 5 of the Sunny Park North Subdivision, with the conditions
recommended in the Planning Office memorandum dated July 19, 1994 . "
Exhibits:
Application Information with plans and elevations - Exhibit "A"
ACSD - Exhibit "B"
Engineering Department - Exhibit "C"
Housing Office - Exhibit "D"
Parks Department - Exhibit "E"
Water Department - Exhibit "F"
7
exhibit A
TO: Mary Lackner
Planning Department, City of Aspen
From: Bob and Glenda Smith
Box 3182
Aspen, Colorado 81612
303-925-3937
Re: Conditional Use (A.D.U.) and 8040 Greenline Review
Existing Residence on Smuggler Mountain
Lot 5, Sunny Park North Subdivision
Date: June 17, 11994
We wish to build an addition to our 2838 square foot 4 bedroom home. We will be
representing ourselves during the review process. Enclosed please find proof of
ownership; the signed fee agreement and a check for $1074.00; a list of property
owners within 300 feet of our property; a current improvement survey; a vicinit37
map; a site plan, floor plans and elevations of the proposed addition; a
statement regarding our easement request; and statements addressing the review
standards for Land Use Code Sections 7-304 Conditional Use Review, 5-510
Accessory Dwelling Units, and 7-503 8040 Greenline Review.
The size of our proposed addition is considerably less than the allowable F.A.R.
for our lot. We wish to add a recreation space for our three teenagers with an
Accessory Dwelling Unit above it for possible rental to our construction
employees or for our own use so we can rent our house when our children are reads-
for college. We have been employees in the city since 1970 - 22 years at
Highlands and the last 2 years at Snowmass. We have also built or remodeled many
houses in the city and the valley. In 1986 we spent $8000 and 12 months going
through the approval process, including the 8040 Greenline review, which set the
precedence for the construction in the area that followed. Our neighborhood has
always been a high density area, although the duplex zoning was changed when Park
Circle was added. Our door neighbor has recently built three employee units on
his lot below his home and many other neighboring homes are duplexes and condos.
We would like to designate almost half of our addition as an Accessory Dwelling
Unit, accessible from the back of our lot, above our home, with an attached
garage (also within the F.A.R. restrictions). We can build a driveway to meet
city requirements, but we will need an easement from the county to access the
paved cul-de-sac in order to do so. Although the road above our house is not an
alley, we believe the access to our proposed A.D.U. can be justifiably considered
rear access. Our lot slopes down from the road above, with the bulk of the
construction well below it and facing awa),.from it toward Aspen Mountain. Only
the garage door will front onto the road, not even the entrance door to the Unit.
The land above our lot was originally designated open space but is now in the
process of being traded to Jim Auster. Ideally we would like a permanent
easement for accessing a garage, but if not, we need a temporary easement in
order to access our property during the construction of the addition.
Finally, we would like to request vested rights approval for everything in the
enclosed proposal. Thank you.
Bob and Glenda Smith
BROOKE A. PETERSON
IDEON I. KAUFMAN
_RIN L. FERNANDEZ **
ROBYN J. MYLER ***
ALSO ADMITTED IN MARYLAND
'* ALSO ADMITTED IN FLORIDA
- ALSO ADMITTED IN NEW YORK
AND CONNECTICUT
LAW OF F ICES OF
KAUFMAN & PETERSON, P.C.
315 EAST HYMAN AVENUE
ASPER COLORADO 81611
VIA HAND DELIVERY
July 14, 1994
Mr. Bruce Kerr, Chairman
Aspen/Pitkin County Planning
and Zoning Commission
c/o Mary Lackner
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Smith A.D.U. Application
Dear Bruce:
TELEPHONE
(303) 925-8166
FACSIMILE
(303) 925-1090
JUL 14
The offices of the undersigned represent Mr. Chuck Rowars,
the recent purchaser of property located. at 131 Sesame Street on
Smuggler Mountain in Aspen, Colorado. That property is immediately
adjacent to property presently owned by Robert and -Glenda Smith.
It is our understanding the Smiths have applied to the Planning and
Zoning Commission for approval to construct a 700 sq.ft. accessory
dwelling unit attached to the existing single-family residence and
for other additions to their home. I wish by this letter to state
Mr. Rowars' position with respect to any construction upon the
Smiths' property. Mr. Rowars does not object to the construction
of the additional dwelling unit or to the other improvements to the
Smiths' property, however, that any addition to the home meet all
of the requirements of the underlying zone district that the
construction is done in accordance with my comments as contained
he.e in, and the additional dwelling lzii� is utilized for pmpl oyee
housing purposes.
First, at this time, it is also our position that the Smiths
are to conduct construction on their property and access their
property only through their own access and not through any existing f F
access to Mr. Rowars' property.-�
Secondly, Mr. Rowars insists that any fill dirt which is fSS`�
removed during excavation, and not -utilized in the refilling around
any completed construction, to removed from the site so that�s4�
it will not disturb or kill any vegetation. Also any disturbance
to existing vegetation should be minimized. From our examination
of the property, it is apparent that the Smiths are fine stewards
of the land and this should not be a problem.
Mr. Bruce Kerr, Chairman
July 14, 1994
Page 2
Thirdly, Mr. Rowars is quite concerned about the height of any
addition to the Smiths' house. Mr. Rowars believes that the height
of any new addition should be no higher than the existing height of
the Smiths' home. This position is in accordance with the
conditions and the standards for review of any development wherein
an 8040 Greenline request is made. As you know, Section 7-503 of
the Aspen Municipal Code requires that: "Building height and bulk
will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend in
the open character of the mountain" as one of the conditions to be
examined in association with any application above the 8040
greenline.
Clearly, any development which exceeds the present height
of the Smiths' residence will not minimize the building height
and will not blend into the open character of the mountain. As
you know, the design of any improvement located within an
8040 Greenline area must also comply with all of the other
conditions contained in Section 7-503.
Finally, in reviewing the proposal for an accessory dwelling
unit, I believe it is important for the Commission to also
determine that the Smiths' development is "subordinate in character
with the primary residence," and that it will actually be utilized
for employee housing and not for the Smiths own occupation.
Mr. Rowars does wish to be a good neighbor, and we believe the
Smith property can be added onto with due regard for our concerns.
Thank you for your review of this matter and the consideration
of our comments.
Respectfully submitted,
IN
A Pressio 1 jC\prpo ation
wig
rdoke A'. P&t-d'rson
BAP/ 1 j n
cc: Charles M. Rowars
Robert and Glenda Smith +
letters\kerr
6W.-�094i�
On July 5, 1994 Robert C. and Glenda D. Smith
posted a sign stating the Time 4:30 and
Place 2nd floor Meeting room in City Hall for
requesting a ADU on their property.
Also on July 5, 54 Public Notices were mailed
or hand delivered to land owners within 300
feet of Lot 5 Sunny ?ark North Subdivision.
My commission expires
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, ' Y Planner
RE: City-Owne Zoline /O en Space Property Zoning
Designati o to OSpace (OS)
DATE: July 19, 1994
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of zoning the Zoline open space
parcel to Open Space (OS). This property is undergoing annexation
and is owned by the City. The bulk of the acreage is currently
being developed as part of the Maroon Creek Golf Course per the
terms of a long term lease with the City. A portion of the
annexation contains the highway right-of-way.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen
LOCATION: The parcel is.57.15 acres and is located on the north
side of Highway 82 on the west side of the Maroon Creek Bridge.
A large scale map of the parcel and surrounding land will be
presented at the P&Z meeting.
ZONING: County zoning AF-2 PUD
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Within 90 days of annexation into the City,
a parcel must be zoned to a City zone district. The annexation
process is expected to go to City Council on July 25, 1994.
Therefore a recommendation by P&Z is sought at this time.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff considered appropriate zoning for this
parcel and determined that Open Space would offer adequate
protection to limit development. The purpose of the OS zone is to
"preserve, protect and enhance lesser developed or undeveloped
areas within the City containing unique naturally occurring or
manmade landscape features which provide visual relief and
enjoyment while reflecting or representing community artistic or
architectural statements. Development on the Open Space (OS) zone
district should emphasize and be consistent with the natural
dynamic state of the land and minimize disruption of existing
natural conditions."
Permitted uses for the OS zone are:
1) Paved and unpaved walkways
2) benches
3) sculpture
01
4) water features such as ponds, streams, or fountains
5) architectural lighting and downcast low -illumination lighting
for walkways and trails
6) sculptured or manicured landscape features
7 ) fencing
conditional uses: none
The limitations of the OS zone will preclude the golf course from
building any structures on the property. Staff-Aoriginally
considered the Park zone district or the Golf Course Overlay
designation, but these allowed a host of structures as permitted
or conditional uses such as recreation building, sport shop,
restaurant facility, maintenance buildings, conference facilities,
active recreation facilities such as tennis courts and swimming
pools, housing, parking lots and lodge. These are clearly
undesirable at this location from staff's perspective given the
fact that the property was originally purchased with open space
funds.
Map Amendment for Rezoning to open Space (OS):
Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 the standards of review for an
amendment to the Official Zone District Map are as follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: There are no conflicts with the zoning code. A parcel
is required to be zoned by the City within 90 days of annexation.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan has set forth the policy
to "preserve key open space parcels which help to establish the
character of the Aspen Area". While this site was not specifically
identified in the Plan, this OS rezoning proposal will strictly
preclude any structures on the property.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The surrounding county zoning is AF-2 PUD on the south,
west and north, and AF-1 to the east. The Maroon Creek development
surrounds this site on two sides. Other adjacent properties are
larger acreage residential parcels, also in the county. The OS
zone will limit development according to the permitted use list
which does not include structures.
The Highway 82 right-of-way is included in a portion of this
2
H
rezoning. However, staff interprets the right-of-way as a pre-
existing condition with little bearing on the rezoning effort.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: The development of the Zoline open space parcel as part
of the Maroon Creek Club locks in this use for the next 90 plus
years. The site itself will not be specifically responsible for
traffic generation above and beyond the golf course. If this use
ceases however, the OS zone will maintain the site in an open,
green state, not subject to radical use alternatives.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: The Maroon Creek development is providing water and
drainage utilities necessary for the site. Without structures,
this site will place little demand on transit, schools and medical
facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
RESPONSE: After completion of the golf course, the site will
remain green and maintained. Per the permitted uses, there will
be few alternatives for the property which could be considered
environmentally detrimental.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: The proposed OS zone allows the entry to Aspen to remain
free from typical development. This use is consistent with the
Aspen Golf Course property across the Maroon Creek Bridge, as well
as the remainder of the Maroon Creek golf facilities across Highway
82.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: As mentioned earlier, a parcel being annexed in to the
City must receive City zoning within 90 days.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
3
3
I
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The OS zone offers the public the best protection for
this parcel to remain in a less developed state versus the Park or
Golf Course Overlay zones. Staff believes that the proposal is in
harmony with the land use regulations.
RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the rezoning
of the Zoline open space parcel and highway right-of-way to Open
Space (OS) upon annexation.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of zoning the
Zoline open space parcel and highway right-of-way to Open Space
(OS) upon annexation into the City."
EXHIBITS
A - Map of Annexation Area
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Les-l-ie- La ont, Senior Planner
RE: KJAX Sate lite Dish - Conditional Use Review Public
Hearing - Continued
DATE: my 19, 1994
SUMMARY: The Commission tabled review of this proposal so the
applicant could provided additional information and the Commission
could visit the site with the story poles set up in the location
of the proposed dish. The Commission specifically asked the
applicant to address the size of the dish, landscaped screening,
the mesh cover of the dish, potential painting of the dish and to
set up story poles.
Staff received the information from the application very near the
deadline for this memo. Therefore staff has attached the July 5
memo with the initial land use analysis of the proposed dish.
Please find attached the updated information that the applicant has
provided.
ATTACHMENTS:
New Information
July 5, 1994 Staff Memo
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
i
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
RE: KJAX Satellite Dish - Conditional Use Review Public
Hearing
DATE: July 5, 1994
SUMMARY: The applicants have requested a conditional use review
to install a satellite dish at the Red Brick School for receiving
and broadcasting purposes. A satellite dish is a conditional use
in the Public zone district. Staff recommends approval of the
conditional use with conditions.
APPLICANT: KJAX public radio station as represented by Sy Coleman
LOCATION: 110 East Hallam, Red Brick Community Arts and Recreation
Center
ZONING: Public
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conditional use approval for a satellite
dish.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering:
1. A specific screening plan must be submitted.
2. The proposed location of the dish in on the public trail.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Proposal - KJAX, Aspen's public radio station, is a tenant of the
Red Brick Community Arts and Recreation Center. During the
discussions for rezoning the school property and identification of
the use of the building, KJAX was a strong participant in those
deliberations. KJAX must use a satellite dish to receive
transmission by National Public Radio, the "backbone of most public
radio stations." This type of dish is the only one that will serve
the purposes of the radio station.
The dish will stand approximately 12' - 3 7/8" with a diameter of
12'. The applicant proposes to place the dish behind the gymnasium
of the building, next to the public trail that goes behind the gym,
and connects to the public trail coming up from the Post Office.
Two locations have been identified on the applicant's map: 1 - to
the west of trail closer to the building; and 2 - on the other side
of the trail which appears to be on the edge of the hillside above
im
the Post Office trail.
Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 24-7-304 the criteria
for a conditional use review are as follows:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is
proposed to be located; and
RESPONSE: The property was rezoned to Public in 1993. The public
radio station was considered an occupant at the time of the
rezoning. The satellite dish is necessary for operations of the
station..
B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for
development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture
of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity
of the parcel proposed for development; and
RESPONSE: The building is surrounded by residential land uses. The
Givens Institute is across the Post Office public trail to the
north. If the dish is located on the edge of the hill behind the
Red Brick it will not enhance the uses and activities of the
surrounding area.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of
the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular
circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise,
vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and
RESPONSE: If the dish is located on the northeast side of the
public trail, perched on the side of the hill, the dish will
visually impact trail users on the Post Office trail and will be
very visible the Post Office area and from the residential homes
along Garmisch Street. Staff recommends the applicant tuck the
dish as close to the building as possible. The dish it cannot
block the public trail.
In addition, the dish shall be screened from view as much as
possible. Before the applicant may install the dish a screening
plan must be submitted to the Planning Department for review.
Because the City of Aspen owns the property, the City will not
provide permission to install the dish until a screening plan is
approved.
D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable
water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection,
emergency medical services, hospital and medical services,
drainage systems, and schools; and
RESPONSE: The public facilities are adequate to serve the dish.
W
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use; and
RESPONSE: This conditional use review does not generate new
employees.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Compre"nsive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The proposed conditional use will comply with the other
regulations of this chapter.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use
for one, 12' - 3 7/8" high and 12' diameter, satellite dish for KJAX
public radio station behind the Red Brick Community Arts and
Recreation Center with the following conditions:
1. The dish shall be located on the southwest side of the public
trail behind the gymnasium of the Red Brick Community Arts and
Recreation Center• as close to the building as possible.
2. Prior to the City's permission to install the dish, a screening
plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval.
3. The applicant shall explore using a darker color on the dish
to blend the dish with the background of the Red Brick building.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Dish Location Map
2. Photo of Proposed Dish
3. Photo of Dish Location Behind Building
3
hl
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
RE: City -Owned Zoline Open Space Property - Zoning
Designation to Open Space (OS)
DATE: July'19, 1994
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of zoning the Zoline open space
parcel to Open Space (OS). This property is undergoing annexation
and is owned by the City. The bulk of the acreage is currently
being developed as part of the Maroon Creek Golf Course per the
terms of a long term lease with the City. A portion of the
annexation contains the highway right-of-way.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen
LOCATION: The parcel is 57.15 acres and is located on the north
side of Highway 82 on the west side of the Maroon Creek Bridge.
A large scale map of the parcel and surrounding land will be
presented at the P&Z meeting.
ZONING: County zoning AF-2 PUD
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Within 90 days of annexation into the City,
a parcel must be zoned to a City zone district. The annexation
process is expected to go to City Council on July 25, 1994.
Therefore a recommendation by P&Z is sought at this time.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff considered appropriate zoning for this
parcel and determined that Open Space would offer adequate
protection to limit development. The purpose of the OS zone is to
"preserve, protect and enhance lesser developed or undeveloped
areas within the City containing unique naturally occurring or
manmade landscape features which provide visual relief and
enjoyment while reflecting or representing community artistic or
architectural statements. Development on the Open Space (OS) zone
district should emphasize and be consistent with the natural
dynamic state of the land and minimize disruption of existing
natural conditions."
Permitted uses for the OS zone are:
1) Paved and unpaved walkways
2) benches
3) sculpture
1
e
4) water features such as ponds, streams, or fountains
5) architectural lighting and downcast low -illumination lighting
for walkways and trails
6) sculptured or manicured landscape features
7 ) fencing
conditional uses: none
The limitations of the OS zone will preclude the golf course from
building any structures on the property. Staff originally
considered the Park zone district or the Golf Course Overlay
designation, but these allowed a host of structures as permitted
or conditional uses such as recreation building, sport shop,
restaurant facility, maintenance buildings, conference facilities,
active recreation facilities such as tennis courts and swimming
pools, housing, parking lots and lodge. These are clearly
undesirable at this location from staff's perspective given the
fact that the property was originally purchased with open space
funds.
May Amendment for Rezoning to Open Space (OS):
Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 the standards of review for an
amendment to the Official Zone District Map are as follows:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any
applicable portions of this chapter.
RESPONSE: There are no conflicts with the zoning code. A parcel
is required to be zoned by the City within 90 days of annexation.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all
elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The Aspen Area Community Plan has set forth the policy
to "preserve key open space parcels which help to establish the
character of the Aspen Area". While this site was not specifically
identified in the Plan, this OS rezoning proposal will strictly
preclude any structures on the property.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with
surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing
land use and neighborhood characteristics.
RESPONSE: The surrounding county zoning is AF-2 PUD on the south,
west and north, and AF-1 to the east. The Maroon Creek development
surrounds this site on two sides. Other adjacent properties are
larger acreage residential parcels, also in the county. The OS
zone will limit development according to the permitted use list
which does not include structures.
The Highway 82 right-of-way is included in a portion of this
2
VAP
rezoning. However, staff interprets the right-of-way as a pre-
existing condition with little bearing on the rezoning effort.
D . The of f ect of the proposed amendment on traf f is generation
and road safety.
RESPONSE: The development of the Zoline open space parcel as part
of the Maroon Creek Club locks in this use for the next 90 plus
years. The site itself will not be specifically responsible for
traffic generation above and beyond the golf course. -rf this use
ceases however, the OS zone will maintain the site in an ope-n-,
green state, not subject to radical use alternatives.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in demands on public facilities, and whether and
the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the
capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited
to transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply,
parks, drainage, schools, and emergency medical facilities.
RESPONSE: The Maroon Creek development is providing water and
drainage utilities necessary for the site. Without structures,
this site will place little demand on transit, schools and medical
facilities.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural
environment.
RESPONSE: After completion of the golf course, the site will
remain green and maintained. Per the permitted uses, there will
be few alternatives for the property which could be considered
environmentally detrimental.
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and
compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen.
RESPONSE: The proposed OS zone allows the entry to Aspen to remain
free from typical development. This use is consistent with the
Aspen Golf Course property across the Maroon Creek Bridge, as well
as the remainder of the Maroon Creek golf facilities across Highway
82.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the
subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support
the proposed amendment.
RESPONSE: As mentioned earlier, a parcel being annexed in to the
City must receive City zoning within 90 days.
I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with
the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and
3
3
intent of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The OS zone offers the public the best protection for
this parcel to remain in a less developed state versus the Park or
Golf Course Overlay zones. Staff believes that the proposal is in
harmony with the land use regulations. ,
RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the rezoning
of the Zoline open space parcel and highway right-of-way to Open r
Space (OS) upon annexation.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval -of zoning the
Zoline open space parcel and highway right-of-way to Open Space
(OS) upon annexation into the City."
EXHIBITS
A - Map of Annexation Area
4
r Y*$VT Z#-.'% k10 11Y
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner
RE: Creektree Subdivision/PUD Amendment
DATE: July 19, 1994
-------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Planning Commission considered the applicant's
request June 7, 1994, to merge Lot 2 and Lot 4 (which is used
solely for access and parking) to increase the building square
footage on Lot 2. This application was requested to be tabled by
the applicant because the Commission was contemplating a 2-2 vote
on the project.
Since this application was considered in June, staff and the
applicant have found another approach in which this application can
be considered. The applicant's letter explaining this new proposal
is attached as Exhibit 111". A new site plan and architectural
elevation are also attached to this memo. This memorandum reviews
this new methodology and PUD amendment.
METHODOLOGY: Staff believes that the Aspen Land Use Regulations
permit the applicant to request a substantial amendment to the
Creektree Subdivision/PUD to recalculate the lot area of each
parcel to include the land area under the park which was part of
the original PUD plan. Using the entire land area of the PUD
permits larger lot areas in which to calculate floor area, thus the
duplex units can expand. This method will also redefine the lot
area for the Eagles Club (Lot 3) and the single family residence
on Lot 1.
The current definition of "Floor area, Planned unit development"
is stated in Section 24-3-101 of the Land Use Regulations as
follows:
For planned unit development (PUD) applications where
land is held as common open space, the allowable floor
area shall be calculated dividing the lot area by the
total number of lots existing and proposed for
development to determine the land area for each lot in
the planned unit development (PUD), which shall be the
area used to determine the amount of floor area of each
dwelling unit in the planned unit development.
Although the Park parcel of the Creektree Subdivision/PUD has been
conveyed to the City for a public park, the park may be
reconsidered to be used as calculating lot area in this PUD
amendment. This method was used in the 1010 Ute residential
project which allowed the lots to use the floor area attributable
to the park which was later conveyed to the City.
Staff agrees with the calculation method proposed by the applicant
on page 2 of Exhibit "1", however, we would like the applicant to
include the Eagles Club, located on Lot 3, in the total calculation
of lot area. Although staff recognizes that it is presently a non-
conforming use in a residential zone district, the PUD regulations
don't differentiate the use of the lot in determining lot area, but
by the number of lots. It is also possible that the Eagles Club
may become a conforming use if rezoning or an SPA overlay is placed,
on the property. Nonetheless, staff believes each lot in the
Creektree Subdivision/PUD should be treated equally in determining
lot area at this time.
The actual calculation has not been prepared by the applicant for
tonight's meeting, as he wants an indication whether this method
is acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to
purchasing a new survey with this information. Should this
proposed amendment be acceptable to the Commission, the applicant
will have the survey prepared prior to the City Council meeting.
Assuming the applicant's survey indicates there is sufficient lot
area to allow an increase in floor area for the duplex units, the
applicant has agreed to limit the expansion potential of each
duplex unit to 500 sq.ft. within the existing footprints of the
duplexes. This would allow the three units that have not converted
their garage to do so, as well as enclosing decks as requested by
the applicant. The net result of this proposed PUD amendment is
an approved increase of 2,000 sq.ft. of floor area divided equally
among the four duplex units. The potential increase of floor area
permitted for the single family residence on Lot 1 cannot be
calculated until the survey is performed, however staff has roughly
determined that it will not be greater than 400 sq.ft.
PUD AMENDMENT: Should the Planning and Zoning Commission agree to
utilize the methodology proposed to calculate lot area, the
applicant will be seeking a PUD amendment to increase the allowed
floor area within the Creektree Subdivision/PUD and to merge Lots
2 and 4. Substantial changes to a PUD require review by the
Planning Commission and final approval by City Council, which
assesses compliance with the PUD review standards of Section 24-
7-903 (B) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
The general requirements of PUD require the proposed development
to be consistent with the AACP, the character of existing land uses
in the surrounding area, and shall not adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area. Staff has concern that the
City is looking at a comprehensive reduction of floor area
throughout all zone districts. This project is not located within
close proximity to any historic structures, however it is
immediately adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. Staff supports the
applicant's request to only add floor area within the existing
footprint of the structure, however we have concern that the
2,
0
increase of 2, 000 sq. ft. may be in conflict with other goals of the
City.
The applicant will be determining the slopes of the parcel in order
to comply with the requirement for density reduction for steep
slopes. As mentioned earlier in this memorandum, this will be
prepared prior to the City Council meeting.
The other PUD review criteria including density, land uses,
dimensional requirements, off-street parking, open space,
landscaping, architectural site plan, lighting, clustering, public
facilities, traffic, and pedestrian circulation will not be
affected by the proposed amendment. The Planning Office is
requesting that the approved building envelope be redescribed in
order to prevent any expansion other than within the existing
building footprint. As mentioned in the applicant's original
application, the merger of Lot 2 and Lot 4 will not reduce any on -
site parking and will better clarify easements on Lot 4.
STREAM MARGIN REVIEW: The applicant had only requested an
exemption from 8040 review in the application. This would permit
only Mr. Beckwith to enclose his deck. Should any of the other
three duplex unit owners wish to inclose their decks or garages,
they would be subject to the full stream margin review requirements
of Section 24-7-504 (C). In order to reduce redundancy and to
clear the record, staff is recommending that if the Planning
Commission finds that the PUD Amendment is appropriate, they should
also grant Stream Margin review approval to the entire project, not
solely to Mr. Beckwith's unit.
Section 24-7-504(C) Stream Margin Review
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development
which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not
increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed
for development.
Response: The proposed development is not within a Special Flood
Hazard Area. The proposed development is proposed to be within the
existing footprint of the duplex units. Therefore there is not
increase in the base flood elevation on the duplex's parcel.
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails
Plan map is dedicated for public use.
Response: The Creektree Subdivision/PUD Plat already identifies
a recreation/river easement within the Roaring Fork River bed as
it crosses this subdivision. Both the Engineering and Parks
Department recommend that this easement be redefined so as to
permit fishing use to a distance of five feet from the median high
water line along the river bank. This language is more consistent
3
2)
with all other fishing easement's along the Roaring Fork River.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are
implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent possible.
Response: The Greenway Plan establishes goals for protecting the
natural river corridor. The natural character of the area should
be maintained for the benefit of those who see the area from the
adjacent park -and trail. Since the proposed development is not
increasing the footprint of the building and the "filling in" of
garages and some decks is proposed, staff does not believe this
poses a substantial impact on the River.
4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that
produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
Response: No vegetation or slope changes need to be made with the
proposed addition of approximately 2,000 sq.ft. of the duplex
units.
5. To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed
development reduces pollution and interference with the
natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary.
Response: The river channel will not be directly affected by this
proposal.
6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation
of a watercourse, and a copy of said notice is submitted
to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Response: Not applicable.
7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is
altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and
his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the
f lood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished.
Response: The applicant will be required to obtain a new stream
margin review if the watercourse is being altered or relocated.
Should such a request be made, this requirement will be applied at
that time.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one -hundred -year
f loodplain.
Response: No work is proposed within the 100-year floodplain,
therefore this requirement is not applicable.
4
x
Staff finds that the applicant's project to add 2,000 sq.ftof
floor area within the existing duplex structures' footprint is in
compliance with the requirements for Stream Margin review.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
approve the applicant's request for a substantial Subdivision/PUD
Amendment which reestablishes the lot area for each lot within the
Creektree Subdivision for the purposes of calculating floor area,
subject to the following conditions. Staff further recommends that
the Commission approve Stream Margin review for the ,development
illustrated on the site plan dated July 13, 1994, which is included
in Exhibit "1". '
1. The applicant shall redefine the building envelope, so that
it is closer to the existing structure to prevent any
disturbance closer to the Roaring Fork River, with the amended
PUD plat.
2. The new PUD/Subdivision Plat must be approved by the Planning
Office and Engineering Department and recorded with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder within 180 days of approval by City
Council. Failure to do so may render the approvals invalid.
3. The applicant shall submit slope and area under water
information prepared by a surveyor, prior to first reading by
City Council, to determine the net lot area of each parcel
within the Creektree Subdivision and the resulting floor area.
4. No vegetation shall be removed between the building envelope
and the river.
50' Prior to removal of any trees, the applicant shall obtain a
tree removal permit from the Parks Department. The applicant
is required to either guarantee that the trees survive for up
to two years after relocation or, should they die, that they
are replaced with comparable trees. Excavating around
existing trees will need to be done outside of the dripline
of all trees.
6. All material representations made by the applicant in the
application and during public meetings with the Planning and
Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval for the
Creektree Subdivision/PUD amendment to merge Lots 2 and 4 and to
increase the floor area attributable to each lot within the
Subdivision. I further move to approve Stream Margin Review for
the duplex structures to expand within the existing footprint s
total of 2,000 sq.ft. as illustrated in the site plan dated July
13, 1994, with the conditions noted in the Planning Office
5
memorandum dated July 19, 1994."
Exhibits:
"1" - Applicant's amended application
112" - June 7, 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission memorandum
apz.pudamend.crktree.2
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner
RE: KJAX Satellite Dish - Conditional Use Review Public
Hearing
DATE: July 51 1994
SUMMARY: The applicants have requested a conditional use review
to install a satellite dish at the Red Brick School for receiving
and broadcasting purposes. A satellite dish is a conditional use
in the Public zone district. Staff recommends approval of the
conditional use with conditions.
APPLICANT: KJAX public radio station as represented by Sy Coleman
LOCATION: 110 East Hallam, Red Brick Community Arts and Recreation
Center
ZONING: Public
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conditional use approval for a satellite
dish.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering:
1. A specific screening plan must be submitted.
2. The proposed location of the dish in on the public trail.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Proposal - KJAX, Aspen's public radio station, is a tenant of the
Red Brick Community Arts and Recreation Center. During the
discussions for rezoning the school property and identification of.
the use of the building, KJAX was a strong participant in those
deliberations. KJAX must use a satellite dish to receive
transmission by National Public Radio, the "backbone of most public
radio stations." This type of dish is the only one that will serve
the purposes of the radio station.
The dish will stand approximately 12' - 3 7/8" with a diameter of
121. The applicant proposes to place the dish behind the gymnasium
of the building, next to the public trail that goes behind the gym,
and connects to the public trail coming up from the Post Office.
Two locations have been identified on the applicant's map: 1 - to
the west of trail closer to the building; and 2 - on the other side
of the trail which appears to be on the edge of the hillside above
l E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use; and
RESPONSE: This conditional use review does not generate new
employees.
F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE: The proposed conditional use will comply with the other
regulations of this chapter.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the conditional use
for one, 12' - 3 7/8" high and 12' diameter, satellite dish for KJAX
public radio station behind the Red Brick Community Arts and
Recreation Center with. the following conditions:
1. The dish shall be located on the southwest side of the public
trail behind the gymnasium of the Red Brick Community Arts and
Recreation Center as close to the building as possible.
2. Prior to the City's permission to install the dish, a screening
plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval.
3. The applicant shall explore using a darker color on the dish
to blend the dish with the background of the Red Brick building.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. Dish Location Map
2. Photo of Proposed Dish
3. Photo of Dish Location Behind Building
3
1-1
•�I
®rr