Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19930504 AGENDA ---------- ------------------------------------------------------------------ ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING May 4, 1993, Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room . city Hall 1. COMMENTS lL- IV"- " commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARING A. city Shop Final POO, Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use Review, GMQS Exemption and Special Review for Parking, Kim Johnson B. Garrish Conditional Use Review for an Accessory Dwelling Unit, Kim Johnson C. Text Amendment for Multi-Family Requirements, Leslie Lamont Parking D. Truscott Place Final POO/Final Plat Amendment and Special Review for Parking and FAR, Leslie Lamont IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Mountain Valley Rezoning and Code Amendment, Tim Malloy V. ADJOURN MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Aspen City Shop Project - Final PUD Development Plan, Conditional Use for a Maintenance Shop, GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facilities, Stream Margin Review, and Special Review for Parking DATE: May 4, 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Final PUD Development Plan and the associated reviews with conditions. The Commission shall have final approval of the Stream Margin Review, Conditional Use and Special Review for Parking and shall forward its recommendations on Final PUD and GMQS Exemption to City Council. APPLICANT: City of Aspen Streets Department LOCATION/ZONING: The 1.24 acre parcel is located at 1080 Power Plant Road. The parcel is zoned Public (PUB). APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The project seeks renovate the existing historic power plant building currently used for storage and maintenance of the City's auto and heavy vehicle fleet. The proposed use is for heated storage of large vehicles. PROCESS: The Applicant has requested, and the Planning Director has agreed to process this application as a consolidated two-step PUD plan finding that no greater public benefit is derived from a four step review. Staff recognizes the prior planning efforts for this site associated with the Master Plan process. If either the Commission or the Council believe that the appropriate process is four -step PUD, staff will precede in that manner. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Planning Office received referral comments from the following departments. Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit "A" with summaries as follows: Engineerincr. Chuck Roth has the following comments: 1. The City should claim, establish title and reflect a new property boundary for the parcel to the north of the shop parcel on the final plat together with a designated easement for the trail. 1 2 . The f inal plan should indicate a f isherman I s easement from the property boundary at the approximate center of the creek to five feet beyond the high water line. The final plan should indicate the mean high water line. 3. The plans should be revised to reflect two twelve foot wide travel lanes. This will leave an eight foot shoulder between the pavement and the top of the creek bank. The site does not offer sufficient space for ideal pedestrian and bicycle accommodation. 4. The curb and gutter indicated on the plans will enhance the definition of vehicle use spaces on the site. 5. The proposed driveways do not meet the requirements of Section 19-101, however the applicant may request curb cut variations as described in Section 19-102. By this review memo, the curb cut variations are approved based on the special conditions at the site. 6. The plan does not indicate a trash storage area. The building permit application plans must indicate a trash storage area on the applicant's property in order to preclude such use of the public right-of-way. 7. Any new utility pedestals must be located on the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. The transformer that serves the project should be indicated and an easement provided. Will the new utility pole be removed during the Cemetery Lane Undergrounding project? If not, utilities for the project should be installed underground at the time of development. The applicant is advised to install empty utility conduits as appropriate for possible future utility needs in order to prevent unnecessary cutting of. the roadway pavement in the future. 8. The drainage plan indicates an overflow line that appears to traverse property not owned by the applicant. The plan also indicates a drainage intercept swale that departs the Shop property on the westerly boundary. As with comments in the trails section of this memo, the property adjacent to the westerly boundary of the Shop may be unclaimed. Title should be established'at this time and reflected in the boundary lines of the final plat. The daylight overflow line should employ a device for preventing the conveyance of floatables to Castle Creek. The building permit application must contain a plan to prevent runoff exposed to excavated soils from reaching the creek. 9. It is recommended that the applicant obtain a snow shed and ice accumulation plan for the project. K 10. The existing Power Plant Road at this site in not within a dedicated public right-of-way. It is recommended that the applicant dedicate right-of-way, from the edge of Castle Creek west for a width of 45 feet, from the northerly to the southerly property boundary. 11. The plan adequately addresses Stream Margin considerations. Housing Office: No additional employees will result from this proposal, therefore housing mitigation is not required. Fire Marshall: Adequate vehicle access and water supply is available. Parks: The spruce trees just below the bridge must be rearranged for proper sight distance. The shrubs in front of the shop entrance are too dense from a maintenance standpoint. Raw water from the creek should be used for irrigation. Sanitation District: No clear water drains (ie. roof drains) shall be connected into the District system. The pumping system plans should be reviewed- by the District as soon as the plans are available. Environmental Health: 1. The wastewater flows from the bathrooms, showers and administration building should be excluded from the grease separator. The sewer service line should be self -draining to prevent freezing. 2. The drainage controls measures seem sufficient to prevent sediment and hydrocarbons from flowing into the creek. Additional site monitoring may be necessary. Contact the Colorado Department of Health for State NPDES permit requirements. 3. No significant air quality issues change per the proposal. 4. The above -ground fuel storage tanks at the new location allows for easy visual inspections. Containment volume is adequate for massive leaks. 5. Final Plans for hazardous material storage (oil, antifreeze, etc.) should be reviewed by this office for conformance with State and EPA requirements. PROPOSAL: The emphasis of the plan is to create a more efficient use of the existing historic structure for heated storage of essential vehicles, while creating a modern maintenance shop and office complex in the other two main buildings. Please refer to the application booklet for a complete description of the sizes of buildings and specific uses of each. 3 STAFF COMMENTS: After the City Shop parcel was rezoned to Public (PUB) in 1992, the City Council initiated a master plan process for the future uses/development of the site. One design alternative was chosen from among 5 options. The Master Plan was endorsed in November 1992 after months of input from staff, neighbors, and the Blue Ribbon (capital asset) Committee. The proposed "compound" consists of: - the renovated power plant building of 5,099 s.f. converted to heated storage for 12 large vehicles and a sign shop; - a new 3,480 s.f. cold storage shed for 8 large vehicles and supplies to replace the existing building; - a 6,297 s.f. maintenance shop building with upper mezzanine for storage; and - a 1,920 s.f. administration building for offices, employee areas and restrooms. The site received Conditional Use approval for the existing maintenance shop facility in February 1992 and Historic Landmark Designation status in April 1992. Planned Unit Development' (PUD): The property is included within a PUD overlay. Approval of a Final Development Plan is required for each PUD proposal. Consolidation of Conceptual and Final reviews is allowed if the Planning Director determines that "the full four step review would be redundant and serve to public purpose". If, during review, the Commission or Council believe that a consolidated two step review is not adequate, the full four step process must take place. Staff believes that since the site has already undergone a complete Master Plan review with input by neighbors and the Blue Ribbon Committee, a four step review is excessive and will serve no useful public purpose. The purpose of Planned Unit Development (PUD) designation is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes greater variety in the type, design, and layout of buildings. B. Improves the design, character and quality of development. C. Promotes more efficient use of land, public facilities, and governmental services. D. Preserves open space to the greatest extent practicable. E. Achieves a compatibility of land uses; and F. Provides procedures so that the type, design, and layout of development encourages the preservation of natural and scenic features. 4 Staff believes that these requirements have been satisfied by the proposed design. 1. General Requirements. a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. response: The AACP stresses maintaining Aspen's character through its historic structures. Also, the Blue Ribbon Committee determined that it was not economically feasible to relocate the City Shop functions. b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. response: The surrounding residential ne-ighborhood developed around this industrial site over the past several decades. Much effort has been made to include neighborhood input for improvements to the site. Staff believes that the proposed plan further reduces historic impacts through better organization/internalization of the site, increased landscaping and more interior storage. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. response: The area is basically developed to maximum capacity already. d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. response: The project seeks GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facilities. 2. Density. The maximum density shall be no greater than that' permitted in the underlying Zone District. response: Since this project contains no residential component, density is not an issue. 3. Land Uses. The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying Zone District. response: The City Shop was granted a Conditional Use for a maintenance shop in 1992. Please refer to the Conditional Use section of this memo for details on amendment to the original Conditional Use. 4. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements in a Public zone shall be determined through PUD review. The following dimensional requirements for the site are proposed as: a. Minimum distance between buildings: 0' b. Maximum height (including viewplanes) 33' C. Minimum front yard: 55' 5 d. Minimum rear yard: 0' e. Minimum side yard: 0' f. Minimum lot width: 160' g. Minimum lot area: 1 acre h. Trash access area: refer to Exhibit "B" i. External floor area ratio: .35:1 j. Minimum percent open space: 14% 5. Off-street parking. The number of off-street parking spaces for Public zoned parcels is also established by Special Review. The PUD review requirements are: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. response: Based on the patterns of use over the years, the site is proposing 10 parking spaces. Twelve employees use the site. A van is used by several staff for downvalley transportation. Seven spaces are dedicated for the remaining staff. Three spaces are reserved for visitors. RFTA bus passes are also available to City employees. b. The parking needs of any non-residential uses. response: As above, employee parking is provided above and beyond the parking needs of the equipment stored and serviced at the Shop. C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. response: Common parking is not required. d. The availability of public transit and other transpor- tation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. response: The free city shuttles are available on Cemetery Lane and RFTA downvalley routes stop at Hwy.82 at Cemetery Lane. This means a several hundred yard walk up/down Power Plant Road, which is accomplishable by most standards. The application also references a van for use by employees. e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities in the City. response: This site is not near the Commercial Core, but this criteria bears little relevance to the proposal. 3. Open Space. The open space requirement shall be that of the underlying Zone District. However, in the Public (PUB) zone, open space is a dimensional requirement established by the specific site plan. response: This particular site is severely constrained regarding space available for official open space. 14 0 or 7,828 s. f . of the parcel is considered to be legitimate open space. The surrounding 6 area including the Castle Creek is moderately to densely wooded. The nearby residential parcels are fairly large. The steep slope behind the Shop site is undevelopable. These factors help preserve a sense of openness for the proposed development even though on - site open space is limited. 4. Landscape Plan. There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed treatment of exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. response: The landscape plan shows a well thought-out arrangement of new plant materials. The Parks Department states that the area in front of the entry contains proposed plantings which are too dense. 5. Architectural Site Plan. There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan an architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency in the proposed development, architectural character, building design, and the preser- vation of the visual character of the City. Architectural character is based upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony and proportion of the building with each other and surrounding land uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion. response: The site received Historic Landmark status in 1992 and is now required to receive Conceptual and Final HPC approval for any substantial development. The HPC is scheduled for Conceptual review -of the architecture on May 12, 1993. The Master Plan for the City Shop has already included input from the HPC. Disturbance to the site is kept within the bounds of -the historic industrial uses which have occurred during the last one hundred years. 6. Lighting. All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. response: Lighting for this semi -industrial site is a function of security and night use. The application commits to providing shielded, downcast lighting, including a light at the fuel island which will be no taller than 101. Street lights similar to the historic styled standards along Main Street are shown on the landscape plan. 7. Clustering. Clustering of dwelling units is not an issue on this site. response: The locations of the buildings on the site have been dictated by the requirements for large vehicle movement needs. 8. Public Facilities. The proposed development shall be designed 7 so that adequate public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development at the time development is constructed, and that there will be no net public cost for the provision of these public facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles. response: This project is necessitated by the increase of service needs to city vehicle fleets and municipal streets functions over the last couple of decades. The project itself does not increase demand on public facilities. 9. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation. a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private use. response: This is accomplished per the site plan. b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. response: The two entry points off of Power Plant Road are being redesigned and will provide better site distance for turning movements. C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will. not create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they will not be adversely affected. response: Impacts to Power Plant Road will be reduced by moving fueling operations and employee/guest parking off of the roadside as currently exists. d. Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty (601) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular access to a public street. response: This is accomplished. e. All non-residential land uses within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion on any street. response: Per the site plan, the project provides organization to the existing access patterns around the historic structure. f. Streets in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be dedicated to public use or retained under private ownership. response: The City Engineer requests the dedication of a 451 8 r.o.w. on Power Plant Road. This request is being studied by the applicant as to the effects on site area, FAR, open space, etc. -------------------------------- GMOS Exemption for Essential Public Facilities:_ Section 8-104 C.1.b. the Council may exempt construction of essential public facilities. The Commission reviews the project and recommends approval of GMQS Exemption to Council. Section 24-8-104.C.1.b. reads: (i) Except for housing, development shall be considered an essential public facility if it serves an essential public purpose, provides facilities in response to the demands of growth, is not itself a growth generator, is available for use by the general public, and serves the needs of the City. It shall also be taken into consideration whether the development is not -for -profit venture. This exemption shall not be applied to commercial or lodge development. A development application shall demonstrate that the impacts of the essential public facility will be mitigated, included those associated with the generation of additional employees, the demand for parking, road and transit services, the need for basic services including but not limited to water, sewage, drainage, fire and police protection, and solid waste disposal. It shall also be demonstrated that the proposed development has negligible adverse impacts on the city's air, water, land, and energy resources, and is visually compatible with the surrounding areas. (iii) Notwithstanding the criteria as set forth in paragraphs (i) and (ii) above, the city council may determine upon application that development associated with. a nonprofit entity qualifies as an essential public facility and may exempt such development from GMQS and from some or all such mitigation requirements as it deems appropriate and warranted. Response: The City Shop proposal is a reuse of an existing building and modest expansion of maintenance and administration space. The proposal complies with.the paragraphs above in that it will serve the public in many critical ways by supporting street maintenance/repair, plowing, and maintenance of the 100+ vehicle city fleet. The Streets Department has made no major improvements to their facilities in recent years to accommodate the community's growth. The Shop is not a growth generator itself (the same number of employees currently working at or out of the site will remain the Z same). Although not typically a public destination, the new shop complex is available to the public as any other public facility. And doubtlessly, the Shop does and will continue to serve the citizens and guests of Aspen. special Review for Parking in a Public (PUB) Zone District: 7-404.B.2: (parking): In all other zone districts where the off street parking requirements are subject to establishment or reduction by special review, the applicant shall demonstrate that the parking needs of the residents, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, its proximity to mass transit routes and the downtown area, and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. response: Similar review criteria for Special Review for Parking have already been addressed in the PUD section of this memo. Staff believes that the parking situation for the site satisfactorily complies with both Special Review and PUD requirements. Conditional Use for a Maintenance Facility in a Public (PUB) Zone: The Commission has the authority to review and approve development applications for conditional uses pursuant to the standards of Section 7-304: 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. response: The AACP promotes efficiency for public facilities, a goal which is reiterated by the Blue Ribbon Committee's report that this site should be revamped to continue its useful life as the City's main shop facility. The Public (PUB) zone district allows for a variety of public uses and requires conditional use review for maintenance shops so that specific operational characteristics are reviewed. 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. response: As mentioned previously in this memo, the industrial use of this site pre -dated the, residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood. This redevelopment plan is a distinct enhancement of the site from functional and aesthetic standpoints. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, 10 including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties. response: The site will be improved in many ways including landscaping, vehicular access, pedestrian movement, parking, and general clean-up and organization of the site. Please refer to the PUD section of this memo for more detailed information on these items. 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. response: All public utilities are in place for the proposed project. E. The ' applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. response: The application states that the expanded shop complex will not employ additional persons, therefore no new affordable housing is proposed. Staff agrees that as long as no more than 12 employees work out of the Shop complex, this requirement is not needed.. 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: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable conditional use standards. Stream. Margin Review: Section 7-504.C. establishes the review criteria for development occurring within 100' of the highwater line of the Roaring Fork or its tributaries. The City Shop proposal falls within this review boundary. The criteria and staff responses are as follows: 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 applicant's engineer has verified that the proposal will not increase the base flood level. 0 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 proposed trail along Castle Creek complies with the Trails Plan Map for the Castle Creek area. Ownership of the land on which the trail is proposed must be verified prior to 11 construction. The 12' wide travel lanes on Power Plant Road will accommodate a future bike lane, if developed. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. response: The Plan recommends "preservation of historic areas and historic structures along the river". The new shop complex seeks to give the historic power plant building another 50 useful years of life. This river corridor itself (slopes, vegetation) will not be harmed. New plantings of native and limited ornamental plant species will help retain a soft appearance at the site. 4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. response: This is a commitment made in the application. 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 drainage improvements to the site will help run- off and water quality in Castle Creek. 6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. response: No alteration will take place, so this requirement is not necessary. 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 flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished. response: This requirement is not necessary. 8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. response: No work will take place within the floodplain. PUBLIC COMMENT: Attached as Exhibit "C" is a letter to the Planning Commission from Robert Camp and Cynthia Curlee, neighbors on Sneaky Lane. They request the following tree items: the stream bank be cleaned up of various debris; the street cleaning trucks not allow their refuse to filter into the creek; and that curb be installed along the east side of Power Plant Road and the riparian zone be rehabilitated. 12 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of Final PUD Development Plan, Conditional Use for a Maintenance Shop in the Public zone, Stream Margin Review, Special Review for Parking, and GMQS Exemption for an Essential Public Facility for the Aspen City Shop with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall revise the site development plan as discussed in the Engineering Department referral memo prior Engineering's sign -off of any building permits. 2. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the plans for hazardous material storage (oil, antifreeze, etc.) shall be reviewed by the Environmental Health Department for conformance with State and EPA requirements. 3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Historic Preservation Committee, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 4. The Final PUD Development Plan and PUD Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the documents within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the approvals invalid. Exhibits: Application Booklet "All "Bit licit Complete Referral Memos - Clarification Letter From Project Representative Alan Richman Letter from Robert Camp/Cynthiar.,Curlee ` 5 iF 2 Y A n r i cityshop.pud.memo 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EXHIBIT APPROVED , 19 BY RESOLUTION ROBERT CAMP CYNTHIA CURLEE 505 SNEAKY LANE P. O. BOX 692 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 April 27, 1993 Jasmine Tygre, Chairman Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Commissioners, Our residence on Sneaky Lane is contiguous to the city shop, so we are very familiar with the property and generally supportive of the project. In connection with your stream margin and other review, we offer the following: 1. The streambank and bed on the north side of the shop has considerable debris, old signs, scrap metal, old asphalt, etc. Can this be remedied in connection with this project? 2. Street cleaning vehicles are regularly cleaned on the edge of the creek with refuse dumped in an area to filter into the creek. Perhaps an alternative approach should be found to dispose of the dirty water. 3. The streambank on the east side of Power Plant Road is in terrible condition resulting from continual migration of gravel and dirt down the bank. We recommend that a curb be installed and that this riparian zone be rehabilitated and revegetated in connection with the project. Thank you for your consideration of these concerns. Robert C. Camp Cynthi A. Curlee cc: Kim Johnson Ms. Kim Johnson April 28, 1993 Page Two Our Engineer is reviewing the comments made regarding site drainage. The drawings to be submitted to HPC include a combination of snow guards, heat tape and gutters above areas used by pedestrians or for parking. We need to better understand the implications of dedicating a 451 right-of-way upon our floor area, open space, setback and similar dimensional limitations before we agree to this request. We have also reviewed the letter submitted to P&Z by Mr. Camp and Ms. Curlee. We agree to clean up the debris on the north side of the shop. We also agree that street cleaning vehicles will cease to dispose of dirty water in Castle Creek. Finally, I need to bring to your attention one correction to the application contents and one addition to our proposal. The correction is on page 4, which states that the height of the maintenance facility is 201 to the ridge and 231 to the ventilator. These numbers were mistakenly transposed from the height of the administration building. The actual height of the maintenance facility is 331 to the ridge and 361 to the ventilator, to allow for maintenance equipment. This height was anticipated on page 8 of the application, which states the site's proposed dimensional limitations. %ftuototolA The addition is a request by th Streets Department for a mezzanine storage area in the -ad --6—a;hieFP building. This 1,740 square foot area will not change the external appearance or footprint of the building. It will increase the site's total floor area to 0.34:1. The need for minor design modifications was anticipated by the proposed floor area of 0.35:1 on page 8. Thank you for your assistance with this project. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter or the application. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICES AIA"W%4 Alan M. Richman, AICP cc: Dave Gibson Jack Reid z � �-� d � � ti� �� �� -�� ���� eoric�Nn.wy ,fie Q� G�iy S .� . � O �� MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner RE: Garrish Conditional Use for an Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit - Public Hearing DATE: May 4, 1993 SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Garrish Conditional Use for a 600 s.f. one bedroom accessory dwelling unit attached to a proposed duplex with conditions. APPLICANT: Michael Garrish, represented by Ralph (Chip) Whipple LOCATION: 855 Gibson Ave. ZONING: R-15 Moderate Density Residential APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests Conditional Use approval to build an accessory dwelling unit within a new duplex pursuant to the housing mitigation requirements in Ordinance 1, Series 1990. The site currently contains a single family residence which will be demolished. The accessory dwelling unit will be 600 s.f. and will be below grade. Please refer to application information, Exhibit "A". REFERRAL COMMENTS: Complete referral memos are attached as Exhibit Zoning: According to the site plan, the proposed garden level patios on the s.e. part of the lot encroach into the 10' side yard setback. They must be changed to conform to the R-15 setback requirements. FAR and height shall be verified at building permit plan check. Housing: The proposed 600 s.f. unit meets the minimum housing guidelines. The resident occupancy deed restriction must be approved by the Housing Office and recorded with the County Clerk, with copies forwarded to the Housing Office and Planning Office prior to the issuance of any building permits. The unit may not be leased for tenancies less than six months. Engineering: Chuck Roth has reviewed the proposal and forwards the following comments: 1. There appears to be more than adequate space on site for off- street parking, however the building permit application plans must indicate all parking spaces and dimensions. 2. In conjunction with the new construction, a sidewalk must be built with this project by the applicant. The design of the sidewalk and adjacent r.o.w. space must comply with the Pedestrian Bikeway Plan guidelines. 3. The building permit application plans must indicate a trash storage area on the applicant's property in order to preclude such use of the public right-of-way. 4. If new utility pedestals are required for the project, they must be located on the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. 5. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. 6. The berms proposed in the right-of-way are not allowed. The applicant shall consult with the City Engineer and the Parks Department, and shall obtain a permit for any other work, including landscaping, within the public r.o.w. 7. The driveway curb cut shall not exceed 181. STAFF COMMENTS: The Commission has the authority to review and approve development applications for conditional uses pursuant to the standards of Section 7-304: 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. RESPONSE: This proposed unit will allow the property to house local employees in a residential area, which complies with the zoning and Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 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. RESPONSE: The accessory dwelling use is compatible with the other residential uses in the surrounding neighborhood. The unit will not be visible as a distinct unit from the exterior of the duplex. 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. 2 RESPONSE: The accessory unit will be completely contained within the proposed duplex. One exterior parking space is shown on the site plan as being dedicated to the ADU. The proposed ADU will have exterior access through a patio/courtyard. No internal access is proposed. 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. No other significant impacts are anticipated. 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. RESPONSE: All public utilities are in place for the proposed duplex and neighborhood. Per the City Engineer, the applicant must construct a sidewalk per the Pedestrian Bikeway Plan guidelines. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use. RESPONSE: The proposed deed restricted unit will satisfy the Ordinance 1 requirements for a new duplex residence. The applicant must file appropriate deed restrictions for resident occupancy, including 6 month minimum leases. 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 Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: This use complies with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and any other applicable conditional use standards. As this accessory dwelling unit is not 100% above grade, the main structure is not eligible for floor area bonus per Ordinance 1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning recommends approval of the Garrish Conditional Use for a 600 s.f. below -grade accessory dwelling unit with the following conditions: 1. The building permit application plans must indicate all parking spaces and dimensions. 3 2. In conjunction with the new construction, a sidewalk must be built with this project by the applicant. The design of the sidewalk and adjacent r.o.w. space must comply with the Pedestrian Bikeway Plan guidelines. 3. The building permit application plans must indicate a trash storage area on the applicant's property in order to preclude such use of the public right-of-way. 4. If new utility pedestals are required for the project, they must be located on the applicant's property and not in the public right-of-way. 5. The new development plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site. Any increase to historic storm run-off must be maintained on site. 6. The berms proposed in the right-of-way are not allowed. The applicant shall consult with the City Engineer and the Parks Department,, and shall obtain a permit for any other work, including landscaping, within the public r.o.w. 7. The driveway curb cut shall not exceed 181. 8. 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 minimum 6 month leases. Upon approval by the Housing Authority, the Owner shall record the deed -restrictions with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office. 9. Prior to issuance of any building permits a copy of the recorded deed restrictions for the accessory dwelling units must be forwarded to the Planning Office. 10. The ADU 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. 11. 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 Conditional Use for a 600 s.f. attached accessory dwelling unit for the Garrish residence at 855 Gibson Ave. with the conditions recommended in the Planning Office memo dated 5/4/93.11 Exhibits: "All - Application Information "B" - Referral Memos 4 Ralph U. Whipple 413 Vine Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 May 3, 1993 Ms. Suzanne L. Wolff Administrative Assistant Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 R : Parrish Acce sory Dwelling Unit se A20-9 Dear Susan L. Wolff On April 20 notices were mailed to property owners within 3 00 feet. Notifying them of the public hearing concerning the accessory dwelling unit application on May 4 at 4:30 p.m. Sincerely, Ralph U. Whipple MEMORANDUM x 9 p TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Text Amendments - Sections 24-5-302 A. & C. of the Aspen Municipal Code DATE: May 4, 1992 SUMMARY: The applicant seeks to amend Sections 24-5-302 of the Aspen Municipal Code. The amendment will affect the Characteristics of off-street parking spaces and access to street or alley. A text amendment is a two step review process requiring a public hearing at the Commission and Ordinance adoption procedures at City Council.A I >i� ii! M�K� . Staff recommends approval of the text amendment APPLICANT: Ted Guy Associates PC APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Amend Sections 24-5-302 A. & C. of the Aspen Municipal Code. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached comments from Engineering. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Proposal: Currently the Land Use Code allows stacking of parking only for single-family and duplex dwelling units. Staff has received several requests from developers proposing multi- family projects to allow stacking of parking when individual garages and parking strip or apron are provided for each unit. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to enable the stacking of required parking spaces for multi -family units when individual garages and parking strips or aprons are provided for each units. The Engineering Department requested additional clarification to this section - dimensions for head -in parking verses parallel ; parking. B. Amendment: the proposed amendments are as follows (bold_; indicates new language): 1. Section 24-5-302. Characteristics of off-street parking spaces and access to street or alley. A. General. Each off-street parking space shall consist of an open area measuring eight and one-half (8 1/2) feet wide by tv i1f { ff } E ` 0 eighteen (18 ) feet long for head -in parking or twenty-two (22 ) feet long for parallel parking and seven (7) feet high with a maximum slope of twelve (12) percent in any direction. Each parking space, except those provided for detached residential dwellings, duplex dwellings and individual private driveways and garages for multi- family townhouse dwellings, shall have unobstructed access to a street or alley. No driveway shall exceed a maximum slope of twelve (12) percent within twenty (20) feet of a property line bordering a public or private right-of-way. Off-street parking must be paved with all weather surfacing or be covered with gravel and maintained in a useable condition at all times. C . Detached and duplex residential dwelling parking. Off-street parking provided for detached residential dwellings, duplex dwellings, and individual private driveways and garages for multi -family townhouse dwellings are not required to have unobstructed access to a street or alley, but may consist of garage area, or parking strip or apron. C. Applicable Review Criteria: Pursuant to Section 24-7-1102 the standards of review for a Text Amendment are as follows: a. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this chapter. RESPONSE: The code amendment does not reduce the number of parking spaces that are required for a multi -family development. The amendment provide more flexibility for the provision of off-street parking in a manner that does not encourage the paving of yards and open space. b. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The amendment is not inconsistent with the recently adopted Aspen Area Community Plan. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding Zone Districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. RESPONSE: The proposed revisions to the Characteristics of off- street parking still remain consistent with parking requirements of the multi -family zone districts. d. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. RESPONSE: The amendment will not generate additional road traffic or impact road safety. It is important to note that this text amendment only pertains to parking that is provided on an 2 individual basis, in other words only those multi -family dwelling units that have been provided individual garages and parking strips or aprons may stack their parking. Therefore shuffling cars between different property owners should not be a concern. 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: This text amendment should not have any impact on public facilities. f. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. RESPONSE: The text amendment is proposed to provide more flexibility when complying with a parking requirement in the multi- family zone districts. More open space will be preserved when cars can be stacked in a parking configuration. g. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City of Aspen. RESPONSE: Preservation of open space and yards verses parking spaces is compatible with the goals of the City of Aspen. h. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. RESPONSE: The text amendment will affect all multi -family developments that provide individual garages and parking strips or aprons. This is an amendment that staff has wanted to process for some time. i. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest, and is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. RESPONSE: The parking requirement for multi -family will not be reduced. Therefore the amendment is not in conflict with the code or the public interest. --------------------*----------------- RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments as contained herein.` 'ion:; 6 - RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the text amendment to Section 24-5-302 A. & C. as proposed in Planning Office memo dated May 4, 1993." 51 �t Housing Authority City of Aspen/Pitkin County 38551 Highway B2 Aspen, Colorado 8161 (303) 520-5050 April 16, 1993 Fax: (303) 920-55BO Ms. Leslie Lamont Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 S. Galena Aspen, Colorado 81612 RE: Affidavit of Public Notice Amendment to Final PUD/Plat for Truscott Place Application Dear Leslie, As representative of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, applicant for the above referenced project, I hereby certify that a Notice of Public Hearing (Exhibit A, as attached) was hand delivered to the property owner within a three hundred foot radius (3001) of the project on April 16, 1993, and that signage was posted on the property notifying the public as to the time, date and place of the Public Hearing. Said signage was posted on the property on April 14, 1993. A photo is included (Exhibit B, as attached) verifying said posting of the property. Attached is the certified mailing list of owners within the required three hundred foot -radius of the project (Exhibit C, as attached) Signature of receivership is provided below for the hand delivery of the Public Notice to the Aspen City Manager. Cap I n Date Of ice of the �s�,en City Manager f Thomas M. Ba _er Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority SUBSCRIBED, CERTIFIED AND SWORN TO ME in the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, State of Colorado this 15th day of April, 1993 by Thomas M.'Baker. My commission expires; "tea9�a 1-n 4 Notary Pub c PUBLIC NOTICE RE: TRUSCOTT PLACE AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT/ FINAL PLAT, AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING AND DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS NOTICE IS*HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held -on Tuesday, May 4, 19 9 3 at ' a meeting to. begin at 4 : 3 0 pm before the Aspen Planning and _Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor'Meeting Room, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an application submitted by the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority, 530 E. Main Street, Aspen, CO. The applicants are requesting an amendment to the Final PUD and Final Plat and Special Review approval for 10 .additional off-street parking spaces, 1,325 additional square feet of floor area for enclosed.exterior storage units, replacement of open railings with solid* railings on the' outside decks, and covering.:of the dumpsters. Truscott Place is located at 39551 Highway 8'2, Lot 2, Aspen Golf _Course Subdivision, _Aspen, CO. Fcr further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the. Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 S.-Galena St., Aspen, CO 9 2 0-5'101 . 2/Jasmine Tygre, Cbairman 'Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in The Aspen Times on April 16, 1993. --------------------- City of Aspen Account. Exhibit A EXHIBIT 3 Order No. A93-011 ADJACENT OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ASPEN TITLE CORPORATION, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado, HEREBY CERTIFIES That is has made a careful and diligent search of the records in the office of the Clerk and Recorder for Pitkin County, Colorado, and has determined that those persons, firms or entities set forth on tie Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein and made a part hereof, reflect the apparent owners of lots, tracts, parcels and condominium units lying within 300 feet of the following described real property situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin State of Colorado, to -wit: See Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof. This Certificate has been prepared for the use and benefit of the above named applicant and the City or Town of in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. THE LIABILITY OF THE COMPANY HEREUNDER IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED TO THE AMOUNT OF THE FEE PAID FOR THIS CERTIFICATE PLUS $250.00 DATE: April 5, 1993 ASPEN TITLE CORPORATION, a Colorado corporation By: Q,) Lynn M. Dycio, V-fcce-Prest ent Exhibit C 1 Parcel of land located in Section 11, Township 10 South, Range 84 West the Sixth Principle Meredian. Said parcel is more fully described as follows: S560251E, 580.41 feet; Thence S330321W, 275 feet; Thence N56028'W, 288.95 feet; Thence N860341W 95.97 feet; Thence N71030'50"W, 42.00 feet; Thence N54032145"W. 53.90 feet; Thence N38044115"W 39.95 feet; Thence N27036140"W, 54.75; Thence N33032'E, 18.63 feet, Thence N56028'W, 28.00 feet; Thence N330321E, 275.00 to the point of beginning Pitkin County, Colorado enclosing an area of 3.906 acres. �►�0031100109 CITY OF ASPEN 130 SOUTH GALENA ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner RE: Truscott Place Final PUD Amendment - Public Hearing DATE: May 4, 1993 SUMMARY: The applicant, Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA), requests to amend the Final PUD development plan for Truscott Place. APCHA proposes to add outdoor storage closets and new deck railings onto the studio units located in the Building 100 (old Red Roof Inn) . Also being proposed are enclosed sheds for the two trash/recycle bins, and ten new parking spaces. Staff has determined that the proposed changes are substantial in nature requiring an amendment to the final PUD development plan. A substantial amendment to the final development plan is a two step review process by the Commission and Council. Staff recommends approval of the PUD amendments. APPLICANT: Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) as represented by Tom Baker and Terry Kappeli LOCATION: Tr,uscott Place Highway 82 Aspen, Colorado. ZONING: Public, PUD APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Amend the final PUD development plan. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Fire Marshal: A site visit indicated to the Fire District that in order to facilitate the additional ten parking spaces the District will require assurance that the cul-de-sac radius would not be encroached upon by parking vehicles. Fire apparatus will need space to turn around. Engineering: Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. Page 5 of application: City will not re -align the -present egress. from the golf course. The applicant would normally bear costs associated with their development. 1. Page 16 of application: "It is the applicant's opinion auto disincentive parking plans can work if there is a minimum of 1 parking space/unit on -site." Providing one parking space per bedroom is the standard Municipal Code requirement. The applicant's need of providing that amount of parking means that auto disincentive is not working. 2. The plans submitted do not indicate the dimensions of the proposed parking spaces. The dimensions must meet code requirements (8 1/21 x 181). It appears that the over-all parking area needs may expand beyond the easement that is in place at this time and that the applicant must request enlargement of the easement. 3. The plat of the final amendment must meet the requirements of Section 24-7-1004.D. Parks: Parks and Golf will need at least a 14 foot entry way to access its storage area, an 18 inch PVC irrigation pipe (schedule 40 rates) must be installed to protect the irrigation ditch, and a better site plan should be submitted depicting existing conditions in this area to evaluate potential problems. STAFF COMMENTS A. Background - The Truscott Place final plat and development plan was approved in 1989. The final development plan included a rezoning of approximately 154,890 square feet of land from Golf Support Services to Public, creation of 46 new affordable dwelling units, and the conversion of 50 lodge units in the old Red Roof Inn (Building 100) to studio seasonal employee units. During review of the original PUD development plan the applicant identified a need for one space per bedroom in the new project and .6 spaces per unit in the existing facility for a total of 114 spaces. A joint agreement was to be pursued with the City of Aspen to lease off-season parking in the golf course parking lot for winter residential needs and reduce the on -site parking to 86 spaces. Council directed the applicant to minimize the use of the automobile and the number of parking spaces as much as possible. The Council felt very strongly that the City's affordable housing projects should be examples for managing the automobile. The applicant requested to reduce the on -site parking from 114 spaces to 86 thus eliminating the need for the parking lot west of the new buildings. That area is now used for volleyball and basketball courts. In 1989, the applicant proposed the following to make the 86 spaces work: Priority Rental to Noh-Drivers - During the lease application 2 period, applicants without cars will have priority for housing in this project. Further, parking stickers/permits would be issued to residents with cars and will be charged a monthly fee in addition to their rent. Shuttle Service/Van Pool - The applicant proposed to participate in- RFTA's van pool program. Van(s) would be leased from RFTA for a monthly fee and be operated by residents of this project. The RFTA lease would have included maintenance, insurance and gas. This van service would be in addition to the existing RFTA service on SH 82. Staff reviewing the proposal urged P&Z and Council to reduce the number of on -site parking spaces to 86 and to require the applicant to provide an audit of the parking situation on an annual basis. Non -permanent facilities were developed west of the new buildings in order to provide future parking if reduced parking did not work for the project. Please see approved site plan, A. B. Proposed Amendment - The amendments to the final PUD development plan for Truscott Place are: * 50 outside private storage units for the 50 studios in Building 100, 26.5 square feet for a total increase in floor area of 1,325 square feet; * enclose the existing two trash/recycle bins for an approximate total of 202 square feet; * replace the open deck railing with a solid deck railing for each studio unit; and * add ten new parking spaces at the end of the cul-de-sac. C. Development Review - Substantial Amendment to the Final Development Plan - Pursuant to Section 7-907 B., any amendment shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final development plan. During review the Commission and City Council may require such conditions of approval as are necessary to insure that the development will be compatible with current community conditions. This shall include, but not be limited to, applying to the portions of the development which have not obtained building permits or are proposed to be amended by any new community polices or regulations which have been implemented since the original approval, or taking into consideration changing community circumstances as they affect 3 the project's original representation and commitments. RESPONSE: The enclosure of the trash bins is an improvement to the condition of the trash storage area. , Enclosures will eliminate an unsightly situation and reduce blowing trash. Replacement of the railing will lend more privacy for residents. The new storage units, although reducing natural light for the studios, will free -up liveable space for tenants of the 360 square foot studio units. A recent change in use for Building 100 was necessary for APCHA to install full stove appliances in an effort to upgrade the studio units. The additional parking spaces, although not consistent with the final PUD development plan, are being proposed as an improvement to the parking situation at Truscott Place. Review Standards - Pursuant to Section 24-7-903 the following review standards shall apply to this amendment: 1. General Requirements. a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Response: Truscott Place is 100% affordable housing. The amendments are not inconsistent with the use of this land area which use is supported by the Aspen Area Community Plan. b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in surrounding areas. Response: The amendments will not impact or change the character of the existing land uses which are affordable housing and the golf course and nordic center. The additional ten parking spaces may, however, impact the support service aspect of the golf course. Access for golf maintenance vehicles must be maintained at the end of the cul-de-sac and the new parking cannot encroach onto the sand and soil pits. The existing irrigation ditch must be culverted and kept flowing. The submitted site plan is inadequate to ensure that this area of the golf course will not be impacted and that access will be maintained. The applicant is drafting a new site plan. This site plan will be presented to the Commission for review at the May 4, 1993 meeting. C. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Response: The amendments will not affect the current use of 4 the golf course or the existing tenants. The new storage units and deck railing will enhance the 50 studio units. There are no new uses being proposed that could increase the need for more parking. The additional 10 spaces being proposed are intended to ease management of the current parking situation. With the additional parking spaces, and the ' recent change -in -use of the APCHA office space to a two bedroom affordable dwelling unit which added 8-10 parking spaces for resident parking, each unit will be assigned a specific parking space which will enable a more efficient management of on -site parking. The 10 spaces that are reserved for Truscott Place in the golf course parking lot will be maintained by Truscott Place for guests and overflow. Any additional uses proposed for this site would require additional parking. d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. Response: Truscott Place is 100% affordable housing and exempt for GMQS. In addition, the proposed amendments do not require a GMQS allotment. 2. Dimensional Requirements. The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying Zone District, provided that variations may be permitted: All dimensional requirements were previously approved with the approval of the final development plan for Truscott Place apartments in 1989. The applicant requests an additional 1,325 square feet of floor area for the new storage units. THe newly enclosed existing trash/recycle bins will add approximately 202 square feet. The floor area for Building 100 will be 30,781. The total floor area for the entire PUD will be 64,298 square feet. Side, rear, and front yard setbacks will not -be affected with the proposed amendments. 3. off-street Parking. Although the Public zoned district sets off-street parking through special review, the proposed amendment is to increase the amount of off-street parking. Therefore, parking will be reviewed as an amendment to the PUD development plan. The 1989 PUD development plan was approved with 86 on -site parking 5 spaces for 96 residential units. In addition, ten guest parking spaces have been reserved in the golf course parking lot. Truscott Place was designed and approved by the Commission and Council as an auto disincentive project. APCHA has been managing the property for three years. APCHA has determined that the approved 86 parking spaces does not provide adequate parking for the residents. Therefore, the applicant proposes to provide ten more parking spaces on -site. It is the applicant's opinion that if each dwelling unit is assigned a specific parking space management of the parking area will be more efficient. The ten spaces in the golf course, parking lot will also be retained for Truscott guests and overflow parking. Currently, staff does not recommend less than one space per dwelling unit for any affordable housing developments. The additional ten parking spaces are proposed on the perimeter of the cul-de-sac at the end of the drive between Building 100 and the two new buildings. Please see the amended site plan, B. The submitted site plan is inadequate to confirm that the maintenance needs of the golf course will not be compromised by the new parking. There are several sand/soil pits, an irrigation ditch and critical park access located in the vicinity of the proposed parking. The applicant will submit a new site plan addressing staff's concerns. The Commission will review the new site plan at the May 4, 1993 meeting. The following review criteria shall be used to review off-street parking for a PUD development plan: a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development. Response: It has been the experience of APCHA that all households at Truscott Place have at least one car. Many have more than one car. With the ability to assign a parking space to a specific unit, APCHA should be able to better enforce parking problems. b. The parking needs of any non-residential uses. Response: N/A C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. Response: Truscott Place residents have access to ten spaces in the golf course parking lot. It appears that the parking lot reaches capacity often during the summer season. Any additional uses (more dwelling units or a more intense use of 0 the bar and restaurant space) in this location would warrant a serious review of off-street parking. d. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile. disincentive techniques in the proposed development. Response: RFTA bus service is available directly adjacent to the entrance of the golf course facility. The school district provides bus pick-up and drop-off within the golf course parking lot. There is a bike path that provides direct connection to town. During the original review, the APCHA made representations that a RFTA van service would be installed and an on -site bike program would be explored. Unfortunately, these have not come to fruition. In addition, the Parks Department continuing to work on a solar lighting system for the bike path along the golf course. Staff would recommend that APCHA continue the effort toward a van service and other measures to reduce the reliance on the private automobile. Ten additional parking spaces may not completely alleviate the problem, especially during the summer when the golf course parking lot is full. e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities in the City. Response: Truscott Place is ideally located for recreational activities. The golf/nordic course, basketball, tennis and volleyball courts are all located adjacent to the housing. The bike path provides a convenient connection to the AABC or town. The Moore pool is within walking or biking distance of the area. 4. Open Space. The open space requirement shall be that of the underlying zone district. However, a variation in minimum open space may be permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the character of the proposed PUD. Response: The recreation area remains unchanged with the proposed amendments. The additional parking will encroach into existing open space. However, the proposed location for parking may impact an area that is used for golf maintenance storage and access to the golf course. The access shall be maintained and the maintenance area will not be compromised. 5. Landscape Plan._ The new site plan that APCHA is preparing for Commission's review will indicate treatment of the existing hummock and aspen trees that may be lost with proposed parking. 7 Enclosing the trash bins will cover a potential eyesore. Other than the loss of some green space to additional parking, no changes to the landscaping will be made. 6. Traffic and Public Circulation. Emergency vehicular movement shall not be compromised with additional parking in the cul-de- sac. The Fire Marshal has indicated that there is lust enough room for emergency vehicles to turn around. The cul-de-sac shall remain clear of vehicles and the parking spaces cannot be reduced below the standard size, (8.51 X 181). D. Amended Plat - The applicant shall file an amended plat and amended PUD agreement. The agreement and plat shall be recorded to depict the approved plans and must be recorded within 180 days of final approval the approval will lapse. The final PUD plat was never filed after approval in 1989. APCHA shall file a full PUD development plat and PUD agreement depicting all prior approvals and approved amendments. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends approval of the PUD amendments for Truscott Place to add 50, 26.5 square foot storage units and enclose the railings on Building 100, enclose the two trash/recycle bins and add ten additional parking spaces with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall amend the PUD plat and PUD agreement to depict the approved amendments to the final PUD development plan. 2. Prior to filing, the amended plat shall be reviewed. and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. The amended plat and agreement shall include prior approval and approved amendments. 3. The applicant shall file with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder an amended PUD development plan and PUD agreement within 180 days of final approval or the approval is rendered invalid. 4. All representations made by the applicant regarding this amendment shall be adhered to during any development. 5. The applicant shall insure that the cul-de-sac is not encroached upon by parked vehicles. 6. A 14 foot access shall be provided for Parks and Golf and an 1811 PVC irrigation pipe (schedule 40 rates) shall be installed to protect the irrigation ditch. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the amendments to the Truscott Place final PUD development plan as represented by the applicant with the conditions as set forth in Planning Office memo 1:1 dated May 4, 1993." ATTACHMENTS: A. Existing PUD site plan B. Amended Site Plans (full set of plans) R' N EXHIBIT A u cr- u w w cn z Nw o z w tJ Q u_ r w o 'Uw CS- Co w z w = z �uw N W W~ Z W �i�inu LD ¢ 3 0♦ / 100 z H N zLAJ ww N, to /--__ •//. /Z 0o. o LL- mo N / q�h / s S9 �o r w z / ♦?i v^, o u a b o u u a. / z Ln )o Ln UJ ),00. Li(n / OS. S W N cr cn F-- u Q w o cr. o oc Z w W v, cz J O ul o 3 tm ¢ u ao w �- c*. � z m W 0 0 W u z a 1- 0 lFj F- Z W E O W Z V) Q�Q W = u u h- F-wCL o > z J _ Z � o u o azQ Lo G J cr-�� --m oocQ O (t� ♦O o �t 0% w 3 Lu o ♦o I Ln o nI r MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM. Tim Malloy, Planning Office �r RE: Mountain Valley Code Amendment and Rezoning tq DATE: May 4. 1993 SUMMARY: The Applicants are requesting approval to amend the Pitkin County Land Use Code to add a new zone district and to rezone the Mountain Valley subdivision to this new district. The purpose. of the request is to eliminate existing non -conforming structures within the subdivision and to allow an increase in the maximum floor area ratio. The Applicants have proposed three alternative methods for increasing the floor area. Two of these involve straight forward increases in the percentage multiplier. The current FAR that applies to this Subdivision is 16 percent. The Applicants propose to increase this to either 22 percent or 24 percent. The third alternative would calculate the floor area by the use of a sliding scale, like the R-15B zone district in the Aspen City Code. The Applicants have had discussions with the County regarding their desire to increase the floor area ratio within the subdivision for several years. In 1988 the Homeowners Association initiated discussions regarding the potential for the subdivision to be annexed into the City of Aspen. In the late 1980s the nearby subdivisions of Eastwood and Knollwood were annexed into the City. As a result the City created a new zone district, R-15B, in order to allow moderate increases in the size of the homes in these subdivisions. The County is requesting input from the City with respect to this proposal, since this subdivision is directly adjacent to the City limits. APPLICANT: Mountain Valley Home Owners Association APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Richard Y. Neiley, Jr., Nieley & Alder attorneys. LOCATION: The Mountain Valley Subdivision, located on Highway 82 in the East Aspen Metro Area east of the Knollwood and Eastwood subdivisions.