Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19911119 f '- " --- ... / AGENDA ------------ ---------- ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGt1LAR MEETING November 19, 1991, Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 2nd Ploor Meeting Room ci ty Hall --------- ------------- I . COMMENTS commissioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARING A. West Hopkins Affordable Housing Subdivision, conceptual PUD and Special Review - Leslie Lamont IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Kayak Course Amendment to a Stream Margin Review - Leslie Lamont V. WORK SESSION A. Kraut Affordable Housing Zone - Leslie Lamont VI. ADJOURN a.cov AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL (Pursuant to Section 6-205.E. of the Land Use Regulations) STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF PITKIN ) The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: I, SUNNY VANN, being or representing an Applicant before the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice of the application for subdivision/PUD approval for the West Hopkins Avenue GMQS Exemption Application was given by 1) posting of notice containing the information required in Section 6-205.E.2., which posting occurred on November 9, 1991, in a conspicuous place on the subject property and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from that date, and 2) mailing Notice of said development application to all property owners within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, which mailing occurred on November 8, 1991. Applicant: ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING By The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowledged and signed before me this day of November, 1991, by Sunny Vann on behalf of the ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My commission expires: �a T 9�� No ary Public 1. Open Space Approxi - .mately 1,880 square feet or 15 % of the site will remain undeveloped. However, none of the area meets the open space standards with respect to visibility,. minimum street frontage or depth. The internal courtyard contributes to the liveability of the project and the large amount of unimproved right-of-way lend to the projects perception of the open space. 2. Parking - Eleven on -site parking spaces will be provided for 11 units and 21 bedrooms adjacent to the alley at the rear of the project. The Code requires only a maximum of 2 spaces per unit for development in the AH zone. The amount proposed is roughly half of what the maximum would allow and it should be sufficient given the proximity to the Main Street bus route and the 10 blocks into downtown. It is anticipated that guest parking will be accommodated on the street and sufficient roadway right-of-way exists. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the subdivision, conceptual PUD, and Special Review for parking and open space with the following conditions: 1. Prior tb the issuance of any building permits: a. A sidewalk plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering and Planning Departments. The standards and guidelines of the Pedestrian and Bikeway Plan for the construction of sidewalks shall be applied. b. A detailed drainage plan shall be submitted with the final plan. The drainage plan needs to include calculations showing that this historic rate of runoff will be maintained. c. A final plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. The plat shall include all utility easements of adequate width for utility requirements; the triangular section of the property on the southeast part of the survey shall be indicated as part of the Homestake mining claim. d. The final subdivision/PUD plat shall be recorded within 180 days of final subdivision/PUD approval. e. Detailed plans shall be reviewed by ACSD for surface run-off, roof drains, foundation drains, and any other clear water drains to be sure that they are not tapped into the sanitary sewer and if basement are added. f. Adequate oil and grease interceptors shall be installed in the floor drains for vehicle parking areas. g. Existing trees shall be staked to protect from excavation and construction activities. 12 adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the requirement of sidewalks has several ramifications for the reduced setbacks. On West Hopkins (5 foot setback), according to the submitted plans, the site's property line is located 19.5 ft. from the edge of the pavement. The applicant has agreed to install a curb and gutter and it is still unclear whether it could be at 2 ft. from the edge of pavement or 9 ft. from the edge of pavement. Using the Pedestrian Plan standards, a conservative estimate of the curb and sidewalk improvements would include a 5 foot buffer/green space to include the irrigation ditch and a 5 foot sidewalk which leaves 2.5 feet of open/green space between sidewalk and property line. A total of 7.5 feet of open/green space would remain between the sidewalk and building. The proposed side setback for South Seventh Street is 1.5 feet. According to the submitted plans, the property line is approximately 30 ft. from the edge of pavement on South Seventh. Using the Pedestrian Plan standards the conservative estimate of improvements would include the 5 foot buffer and 5 foot sidewalk leaving over 11 feet of open/green space between the sidewalk and property line. A total of 12.5 feet of open/green space would remain between the sidewalk and building. Drawings will be provided at the meeting for the Commission to review the proposed reduction in setbacks and Pedestrian Plan recommendations. Staff has expressed some concern regarding the West Hopkins and South Seventh setbacks in the event a sidewalk is installed. The installation of a hard surface may negatively affect the perception of a large setback thus pulling the buildings closer than has been visualized or desired. However, reduced front and side yard setbacks are common throughout the downtown area and in some residential neighborhoods. The most important setback, the east side yard, is still being maintained to reduce the impacts to the adjacent townhomes. In addition the three carriage house units are consistent with the cottage infill program. That program incorporates historic site design patterns allowing a zero rear yard setback. The design team not only believes it is important to provide the best possible open space for residents via the internal courtyard, but they have also expressed a strong desire to not provide standard sidewalks in order to encourage a west end feeling. The team also contends that hard surfaced sidewalks are not necessary for project circulation. Moreover, because sidewalks do not exist for the other three properties on this block, the applicant would like to defer the installation of sidewalks until such time that the rest of the sidewalks are installed, possibly through an improvement district. II. Special Review - Pursuant to Section 7-400, open space and on - site parking are established by Special Review by the P&Z. it XEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning DATE: November 19, 1991 RE: Kayak Course Stream Margin Review Amendment ------------- SUMMARY: The P&Z, at the October 22, 1991 meeting, reviewed and approved a stream margin review for the development of a kayak course at the Rio Grande. As part of that review staff mentioned that some of the fill may possibly be used to build a pedestrian/bike path in Newbury Park behind the Eagles Club. The path would connect Spring Street with the foot bridge that crosses the river into Oklahoma Flats. This is an important north/south pedestrian connection. The Neighborhood Advisory Committee recently identified this as the number 1 trail priority for 1992. STAFF REVIEW: 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 floodplain. Staff recommends an amendment to the October 22, 1991 Stream Margin review because, although this was briefly discussed during review of the kayak course, staff was unable to provide the details of the trail at that time and a portion of the work is within 100 feet of the high water line. The approximate amount of fill to be used at this time is 5,000 cubic yards. The dimensions of the trail are: the toe of the new embankment will be approximately 50 feet for the tr:?1 at its closest point; the grade of the trail is approximately 6%; and the grade of the slope from the trail to the toe of the slope is 2:1 with the potential for modification to 1:1 (terraces are envisioned). Staff will present a map of the proposal at the meeting. The City Managers staff is scheduling a meeting with the Eagles and the neighbors to review this trail proposal. The applicable standards for Stream Margin Review 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: No fill will be placed within the special Flood Hazard Area. The majority of the fill will fall outside of the 100 foot boundary from the high water line. . 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: Placement of fill in this location is intended to enhance the trail system and is consistent with the Plan. 3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. RESPONSE: This project will follow the recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. The development of a new trail in this location will provide access to the river and Newbury Park. 4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. RESPONSE: The fill will be stabilized and graded to prevent erosion. The fill is far enough away from the river to ensure that is some erosion does occur that it will not enter the river. 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: There will be no interference with the river. 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: Not applicable. 7. A guarantee or relocated, successors and capacity on the is provided in that applies assigns that parcel is not RESPONSE: Not applicable. 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 f loodplain. RESPONSE: There is no work within the 100 year floodplain. 2 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the amendment with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the removal of any trees greater than 6" caliper tree removal permits must be obtained from the Parks Department. Any tree removed shall be replaced on site pursuant to the Parks Department standards. 2. All fill shall be stabilized and landscaped by the Spring of 1992. 3. Neighborhood concerns shall be resolved prior to the placement of fill in Newbury Park. 4. Placement of fill shall in no way encroach into the 100 year floodplain without further review. K MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Work Session - Kraut Property DATE: November 19, 1991 The Housing Authority has submitted a rezoning application for the southwest corner of East Hyman and South Original Street. The Authority seeks to rezone the parcel from Office to Affordable Housing. In the past, AH proposals have been initially reviewed in a work session. This application has been scheduled for rezoning review December 9, 1991. The Housing Authority would like this opportunity to briefly review the Kraut rezoning proposal at this work session prior to you review December 9. The Authority will make a brief presentation of the proposal at the meeting.