HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19920204
:......
\. "
.O"NDA
---------=====-----=--------=======
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
REGOLAR MEETING
February 4, 1992, ~uesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
Ci ty Ball
-..
-.....-
=1::8..11. _
I. COMMENTS
-
cODlJllissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II.
MINUTES
II:?J.~;' I +-
'Il.l '1~
N BOSINESS
"s
,", .
III.
A. Code Amendment for a Temporary Ose Permit - city
Council passed as an emergency measure on January
13, 1992, Diane Moore
B. Phelps/McFarlane stream Margin Review, Leslie Lamont
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. city Maintenance Shop Conditional Ose Review for
Maintenance Facility in a Public zone, Kim Johnson
B. Ote Park Subdivision Final POD, 8040 Oreenline,
Rezoning, Text Amendment (continued from January
21), Itim Johnson
V. WORK SESSION
A. Itraut Affordable Housing project Text Amendment
VI . ADJOURN
",'.
...
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy Christensen, Planning Office
RE: Upcoming Meetings
DATE: January 30, 1992
This is a list of your scheduled upcoming meetings.
Regular Meeting, February 18th
Williams Ranch Work Session - KJ
Ordinance 1 Work Session Review
Regular Meeting, March 3rd
Regular Meeting, March 17th
Berger Rezoning (PH) - KJ
Williams Ranch Rezoning (PH) KJ
a. nex
MEMORANDUM oEr' I
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department-,. C
Date: December 12, 1991
.Re: Ute Park Subdivision Final Plat, PUD, Text and Map
Amendment, 8040 Greenline Review, GMQS Exemption
Condominiumization
Parcel ID# 2737-184-00-009
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above -mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this" office by the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen
Municipal Code.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with public sewer as
provided by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. This
conforms with Section 1-2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of
public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit
the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to
areas that are not feasible for public sewers".
Regulations:
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
The applicant has agreed to serve the project with water provided
by the Aspen Water Department distribution system. This conforms
with Section 2, 55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such
projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal water
utility system".
AIR QUALITY:
The location of this project is ideal from an air quality point of
view, since it is within easy yaiking:distance.,of 4owntown.
The tbelow-grade garage area should --be designed .so that -fumes from -
it do not accumulate in the living area.
Dedication of the hiking and cross country trail easement which is
now a missing link in the system, also provides an air quality
benefit, by providing an alternative to motorized travel.
UTE PARK SUBDIVISION
June 12, 1990
Page 2
Prior to construction, an approved Ifugitive dust control plan must
be obtained from the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division and
this office. The plan must include such measures as cleaning paved
roads where dirt is carried onto them from construction vehicles,
wetting of disturbed areas and access roads, and installation of
fencing to prevent dust from blowing onto nearby properties and
roads.
`� 3
• I I I �)
ja 3 199Z
MEMORANDUM
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer jJ
i
Date: January 3, 1992
Re: Ute Park Subdivision Final Plat, PUD, Text and Map
Amendment, 8040 Greenline Review, GMQS Exemption,
Condominiumization
Having reviewed the above referenced application and having made
a site inspection, I have the following comments:
1. The upper Ute Avenue Improvement District is scheduled for its
first reading January 13, 1992. Contingent upon the outcome, the
following comments will pertain for this review:
A. The applicant will continue to coordinate traffic lane
widths, road shoulders, drainage improvements and snow storage
allowances with the city staff.
B. If the upper district is included in the construction and
bonding procedures, the existing 60 foot utility/access easement
might have to be dedicated as a public right-of-way.
C. Any improvement work should be done in accordance with
city specifications. (There is always the possibility that the 60
foot utility/access easement could be dedicated as public right-
of-way in the future.)
D. No driveway or parking space can exceed a 12% grade.
2. The applicant must provide an engineer's stamped letter
recounting the method for determining the slope reduction
calculations.
,3. The submitted storm drainage calculations in this application
are not acceptable in that they do not have an engineer's stamp and
they show the developed drainage exceeding the historical drainage.
As the structures for the free market lots have not been designed,
the increase to impervious runoff can not be determined.
Therefore, storm drainage calculations for the free market lots
must be provided at the time of individual building permit
application.
4. I have discussed the code section referring to similar
subdivision names with the city attorney's office. The current
37
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
EXHIBIT _ , APPROVED
19 BY RESOLUTION •
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: February 4, 1992
RE: Ute Park: Continued Public Hearing for Subdivision/Final
PUD Plan, 8040 Greenline Review, Rezoning to AH
Affordable Housing, Text Amendment, Growth Management
Exemption, and Special Reviews for Open Space and Parking
in the AH Zone
----------------------------------------------------------------
Background: The public hearing for this item was opened on January
17, 1992. At that meeting, the Commission heard an overview of the
process by staff and a project description by representatives of
the proposal. Discussions ensued regarding the areas of concern
highlighted in the staff memo. In consideration of the complexity
of the several reviews involved with the project, the Commission
determined it would be wise to vote on two particular reviews which
did not have specific site plan review standards. A vote of 4-3
resulted in favor of rezoning from RR Rural Residential to AH
Affordable Housing. The proposed text amendments allowing a
sliding scale for detached residential FAR was passed by a vote of
5-2. These recommendations will be forwarded to City Council.
The Commission shall make a final determination on 8040
Greenline and Special Reviews for Open Space and Parking in an AH
zone. The reviews remaining before the Commission for
recommendation to City Council are Subdivision, Final PUD Plan,
and Growt% Management. Exemption for Affordable Housing and Free
Market Housing in AH zones.
The Planning Office memo for the January 17 meeting is
attached for your reference.
Issues from List Meeting: In its original memo, the Planning
Office identified some concerns with this proposal. Briefly these
are:
1. Emergency access to the free market lots via the private
driveway: The applicant has offered to construct adequate
turn-arounds on each lot to specifications required by the
Fire Marshal's office. The Fire Marshal has since responded
that the developer must submit drawings to his office for
review and that nothing has been submitted to him yet. Staff
believes that since the single family lots will be developed
individually, the driveway turn-arounds should be either
built by the developer up front, or indicated on the approved
plat so they are not overlooked by zoning during final plan
review. If an individual wishes to revise the turn -around on
his/her lot, the Fire Marshal would have to approve any
change.
--- 2. 'Ute Ave. Improvement District impacts to proposed parking:
The Engineering staff has spoken with project engineer Bob
Daniel and they have come to an -agreement on the width of
dedicated Ute Ave. right-of-way and access easement. The
applicant will dedicate a 40 foot right-of-way and additional
access easement as determined by the City Engineer. The
proposed townhome parking will therefore not involve an
encroachment into a right-of-way, and a front setback
variation will not be required.
3. Affordable Housing category restrictions: The Housing
Authority Board of Directors met on January 22 and voted 5-
2 in favor of a recommendation for restricting four of the
townhomes to category 4 price/income requirements and three
townhomes to category 3. The housing guidelines in effect
today shall apply to this project. In addition, they wanted
to pass on a recommendation to staff and review bodies that
in the case of four -step review cases, its very critical that
a thorough discussion of category level take place during
conceptual review. Since an applicant must make important
decisions early on regarding restrictions, reviewing bodies
must make every effort to give comments that can be relied
upon substantially. Planning staff concurs with the Housing
Board regarding the restriction categories.
4. Avalanche hazard for the townhome buildings: As discussed at
the first hearing, Planning and Engineering have strong
concerns about the proposed protection a free market home on
Lot 1 will afford the townhomes below. As the future
construction schedule, design and location for this home
cannot be determined at this time, it is recommended that the
townhomes be built in accordance with the structural
guidelines required by the applicant's avalanche consultant.
Conditions of approval: Planning recommends the approval of the
Ute Park Subdivision/PUD, 8040, Special Reviews, and GMQS
Exemptions with the 24 conditions listed on pages 24-27 of the
January 21, 1992 staff memo with the following changes:
#19: (delete the last line and replace with:) The applicant shall
construct the required turn-arounds prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the first free market home, or indicate the
appropriately designed turn-arounds on the plat and Final PUD Plan.
Final designs shall be approved by the Fire Marshal.
#22 (pending final right-of-way acceptance by City Council) delete
this condition regarding front setback variation for the townhomes.
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: planning and Zoning Commission
• FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: January 21, 1992
Re: Ute Park Subdivision/Final PUD Plan, 8040 Greenline
Review, Rezoning to AH Affordable Housing, Text
Amendment, Growth Management Exemption, and Special
Reviews for Open Space and Parking in the AH Zone
-Zummary: The Planning Office recommends approval of the rezoning
to AH and text amendments. Planning recommends tabling of
Subdivision, Final PUD Plan, 8040 Greenline review, Special Reviews
for parking and open space, and GMQS Exemption, to allow further
research of the items listed above in Problem Discussions.
If the Commission wishes to approve the project, recommended
conditions have been included by Planning staff.
Applicant: Ute Park Partnership c/o Jim Martin, assisted by Tom
Stevens, The Stevens Group, Inc.
Location / Zoning: This 3.8 acre parcel is located on the south
side of the east end of Ute Ave. across from the Aspen Club and
Benedict Office Building. The current zoning is RR Rural
Residential.
Request: The applicant wishes to rezone the parcel to AH for
purposes of developing seven deed restricted townhomes within two
buildings and three free market lots for single family residences.
This will require Final Subdivision and PUD approval, 8040
Greenline review for the townhomes, Special Review for parking and
open space in an AH zone, and GMQS Exemption for the affordable
and free market units. Additionally, the applicant seeks to amend
the Land Use Code regarding allowable FAR maximums for single
family dwellings. Please see the attached application booklet for
proposed site plan and subdivision plat. (Full sized drawings will
be available at the meeting.)
The three bedroom townhomes (deed restricted to Category 4) will
range from 1,285 s.f. to 11309 s.f. of net livable area and will
have three levels. One garage space and one uncovered space is the
proposed parking for each unit. The townhomes' architecture will
be consistent with development in the neighborhood and with the
architectural guidelines proposed for the free market lots within
this application. Materials will be cedar siding, double hung wood
windows, shake or metal roofs, and peeled log accents. The largest
of the two townhome buildings is approximately 5,200 s.f. net
1
In addition to the changed condition of approval, Planning
recommends that the deed restrictions shall be four category 4
units and three category 3 units.
utepark.memo2.4
E14ylei zkXi1IfYi
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: Phelps/McFarlin Stream Margin Review
DATE: February 11, 1992
SUMMARY: The applicant has submitted an application for the
demolition and reconstruction of a single family home on 163 Park
Avenue. Pursuant to Section 7-504, Stream Margin Review is
required. The Planning Department recommends approval with
conditions.
APPLICANT: Edwin L. Phelps and Linda S. McFarlin, as represented
by Susan Furr.
LOCATION: 163 Park Avenue
ZONING: R-6, Medium Density Residential
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Stream Margin review of the demolition and
reconstruction of a single family home adjacent to the Roaring Fork
River.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department has reviewed the
application and has the following comments:
1. The applicant must make a statement on the permit set of
drawings indicating there will be no disturbance of vegetation
between the building envelope and the river.
2. The applicant is required to plant any regraded area inside
the building envelope with species keeping with the Roaring Fork
Creerwc;y Dlan as well as existing plants in the area.
3. The applicant is requested to grant a fisherman's easement
along the river for a width of five feet along the bank adjacent
to the property and five feet into the water.
4. A construction site drainage plan and procedure must be
submitted for engineering department approval prior to the issuance
of an demolition, excavation or building permit. The construction
procedures employed must be such that no runoff from rain or
snowmelt be permitted to drain to the river from contact with
disturbed earth. The construction procedure used will in no way
impact the stream.
5. While not depicted, it appears that the applicant will be able
to provide its required driveway/parking area out of the public
right-of-way.
6. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in the public rights -of -way, staff would like the
following condition of approval:
The applicant shall consult City Engineering for design
considerations of development within public rights -of -way and
shall obtain permits for any work or development within public
rights -of -way from the City Streets Department.
STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to Section 7-504 C. development is
required to undergo Stream Margin Review if it is within 100 feet
from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its
tributary streams, or within the one hundred year f loodplain.
The applicable review standards 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. This shall be
demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional
engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado which
shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including,
but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off -site
which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by
the development.
RESPONSE: According to the application, this project will not
increase the base flood elevation. The lowest part of the
foundation will be 88.3 ft. and the slab will be at 92.0 ft. , which
is a minimum of 16 ft. above the high water line of the river and
9 ft. above the 100 year flood line. This has been confirmed by
the Engineering Department.
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: There are no trails on the parcel.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are
implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest
extent practicable.
RESPONSE: In keeping with the plan the applicant is requested to
dedicate a fisherman's easement. The applicant also plans to add
more trees to the property.
4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that
produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
RESPONSE: The applicant intends to grade only what is minimally
necessary to backfill around the foundation. All existing trees
2
will remain except those indicated on the plan. A tree removal
permit will be sought for any removal of trees greater than 6" in
caliper. The proposed landscaping includes replacement of a group
of aspen at the southwest corner of the house.
As per Engineering comments a site drainage plan and procedure must
be submitted for departmer-tal approval prior to the issuance of a
demolition, excavation or building permit.
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: According to the application states the course of the
river will not be altered. Construction procedures must be
employed in such a manner as no run-off from rain or snowmelt will
be permitted to drain to the river from contact with disturbed
earth.
6. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation
Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and
copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
RESPONSE: N/A
7. A guarantee
or relocated,
successors and
capacity on the
RESPONSE: N/A
is provided in
that applies
assigns that
parcel is not
the event a water course is altered
to the developer and his heirs,
ensures that the flood carrying
diminished.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits
relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain.
RESPONSE: N/A
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the stream margin
review to reconstruct the single family home with the following
conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of any permits:
a. The applicant must make a statement on the permit set of
drawings, indicating there will be no disturbance of vegetation
between the building envelope and the river. A tree removal permit
is necessary for all trees removed that are over greater than 6"
in caliper.
b. A construction site drainage plan and procedure must be
submitted for engineering department approval. The construction
procedures employed must be such that no runoff from rain or
snowmelt be permitted to drain to the river from contact with
disturbed earth. The construction procedure used shall in no way
impact the stream.
c. The applicant is requested to grant a fisherman's easement for
the river for -a width of five feet along the bank adjacent to the
property and five feet into the water.
-- 2 . Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the
applicant is required to plant any regraded area inside the
building envelope with species keeping with the Roaring Fork
Greenway Plan as well as existing plants in the area.
3. Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in the public rights -of -way the applicant shall consult
-amity Engineering for design considerations of development within
public rights -of -way and shall obtain permits for any work or
development within public rights -of -way from City Streets
Department.
4. All representations that have been made in the application and
during the presentation shall be adhered to.
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, -Planner
RE: City of Aspen Streets Shop - Public Hearing for
Conditional Use for Maintenance Facility in Public Zone
DATE: February 4, 1992
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
conditional use with conditions. This request is made in order to
have appropriate use approval for the shop facility in the Public
zone. This request coincides with the rezoning to Public zone
district already recommended by the Commission for approval by City
Council. The public hearing by City Council will be held on
February 24, 1992.
APPLICANT: The City of Aspen Streets Department, represented by
Jack Reid, Superintendent of Streets
LOCATION: The 27,000 s.f. parcel is located at 1080 Power Plant
Road, adjacent to Castle Creek.
ZONING: Current zoning is R-30 with a PUD overlay. Requested
zoning is PUBLIC (PUB) . The PUD overlay will remain on the parcel.
"Maintenance Shop" is a conditional use in the Public zone
district.
BACKGROUND: The Streets Department is required by the
Environmental Protection Agency to replace the underground fuel
tanks on the maintenance facility site. In response to this
requirement as well as environmental concerns by neighbors and
staff, the decision was made to pursue: 1) rezoning to Public;
2) text amendments to allow above -ground fuel tanks as conditional
uses in Public and SCI zone districts; 3) conditional use approval
for above -ground fuel tanks. These reviews were conducted by the
Commission in December of 1991. The conditional use for the fuel
tanks was approved with conditions. Recommendations for approval
of the rezoning and text amendments were forwarded to City Council.
Due to a notification error, this conditional use review for the
maintenance shop use did not occur simultaneously with the other
Commission reviews.
PROCESS: Conditional Use review is a one step public hearing, with
final determination made by the Planning Commission. In addition,
an insubstantial PUD amendment is currently being processed by
Planning staff for signature by the Planning Director.
1
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Conditional Use approval for Maintenance Shop
in a Public Zone district.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: Chuck Roth from Engineering forwards the
following comments:
The Engineering Department recommends that the City Shop receive
-conditional use .approval in order to legitimize its current use.
We have investigated what has been termed the "drainage" issue.
More appropriately, the situation would be described as illicit
industrial discharges to the storm sewer system and/or to Castle
Creek. The street superintendent has assured me that leach fields
have been constructed such that no vehicle washing effluents nor
street cleaner cleaning effluents enter Castle Creek. The street
sweepings are still emptied at the water plant. It is only the
cleaning of equipment that occurs at the shop.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Conditional Use Review: The applicant seeks conditional use
approval for a maintenance facility in the Public zone. Section
7-301'of the Land Use Code establishes the following review
criteria for conditional uses:
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 pending zoning map amendment will allow the City
maintenance shop as a Conditional Use. The 1973 Land Use Map shows
this area as a public use. Allowing the shop at this location
augments the City's use of this site both currently and in the
future.
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 site has been a City facility for, one hundred years,
and the City Shop since 1958. The Streets Department is committing
to do a general clean-up of the area and also proposes.that the
existing chain link fence along the street and river frontage will
be replaced by a 6' wood fence to improve the area's appearance.
However, due to seasonal limitations, the applicant proposes that
the new fence be installed no later than June 1, 1992. Existing
vegetation along the river will help blend the fence in to the
surrounding environment. Thus, the entire shop compound will
become more compatible with the neighborhood.
E
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.
Response: Please refer to Exhibit "A" for the site plan of the
maintenance facility. The existing operation of the current
maintenance facility will not change with regard to personnel,
traffic or size. Current use of the site includes fueling and
maintenance ,operations for the City's 115 vehicles. Typical on -
site storage accommodates 30 vehicles, from pick-up trucks to road
graders and plows. The building itself allows no more than three
vehicles to be worked on at once. Staffing includes 3 mechanics
and 9 vehicle operators / administration staff.
As mentioned in the Engineering comments, there has been concern
over vehicle washing effluents entering Castle Creek. Although
Engineering is comfortable with the current leach field system,
Planning recommends that continued diligence in effluent control
be required.
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 neighborhood infrastructure is in place and
increases are not anticipated with this proposal.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use.
Response: No changes in personnel result from this request. There
is no increase to FAR or net leasable area requiring mitigation.
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: All standards are being met by this proposal.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends approval of the
conditional use for Maintenance Facility in the Public (PUB) zone
with the following conditions:
1. All State and Federal environmental requirements and Aspen Fire
3
Marshal requirements must be followed.
2. The screen fence along Power -Plant Road and adjacent to Castle
Creek must -be in place no later than June 1, 1992.
3. An insubstantial PUD amendment shall be processed for Planning
Director approval.
4. No effluent from vehicle washing shall be allowed by surface
drainage into Castle Creek.
RECOMMENDED NOTION: I move to approve a conditional use for the
City Maintenance Shop in the Public zone, with the four conditions
listed in the staff memo dated February 4, 1992.
Exhibit "A" - Site Plan of Maintenance Facility
jtkvj/cityshop.maint.memo
4