Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19910319 / AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR IlEETING March 19. 1991. Tuesday 4:30 P.M. 2nd Floor Meeting Room city Hall I. COMMENTS eo..i.ssioners Planning Staff Public II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC BEARINGS A. Lewis 8040 Greenline and Conditional Use Review B. Text AIIIendaent - Section 7-602: Demolition, Partial Demolition or Relocation of Structures in a H, Historic OVerlay District, or involving a Historic Landmark IV. ADJOURN a.cov ME 40RANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning RE: Lewis 8040 Green Line Review and Conditional Use Review DATE: March 19, 1991. SUFR(ARY: The applicant proposes to demolish and rebuild an existing single family residence and provide an attached accessory dwelling unit. Staff recommends approval of the 8040 Greenline and conditional use for an accessory dwelling unit. APPLICANT: Rick Lewis as represented by Stan Mathis LOCATION: Lot 6 Tipple Wood Subdivision, Aspen ZONING: L/TR, Lodge/Tourist Residential APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To replace a two bedroom two bath residence .with a two bedroom two and half bath residence and a one bedroom accessory dwelling unit for a total of approximately 31700 square 1 feet. REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department has submitted referral comments, please see attachment A. Specific points are as follows: a. the building shall be sprinkled; and b. a storm drainage plan shall be provided; and C. authorization of use of the two parking places must be provided; and d. a site/grading plan shall be provided'to ensure that the site will be restored and revegetated; and e. the recorded plat for the lot split does not include the Little Nell Foot Trail Easement, the plat shall be amended to include the trail easement. Supporting documentation is attached to the Engineering referral comments. STAFF CON 1fiiEN`.PS : 8040 Greenline Review - Pursuant to Section 7-503 no development shall be permitted at, above, or 150 feet below the 8040 greenline unless- the Commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below. This proposal is located within 150 feet of the 8040 - greenline and is adding more than 10% to the floor are of the existing structure therefore is, subject to the full 8040 Greenline review. The following review standards_ for a 8040 Greenline review are as follows: A. The parcel on which the proposed development is, to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidende and'the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain haz-ardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegatate the -soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. RESPONSE: According to the. application this site has been developed for at least 18 years. The parcel is totally surrounded by developed properties. Mr. Lampiris, the consulting geologist, has examined the site and did not find evidence of unstable slope activity (attachment B). But he cautions that this 'could change if unusual amounts of surface or subsurface water permeates to the foundation, which is unlikely under natural conditions. He recommends that the soils engineers performing necessary drainage work for the site. The applicant will submit a soils report from a registered soils engineer prior to obtaining a foundation permit. It is also recommended that if mine waste, or related mining debris are found on site that the applicant contact the Environmental Health Department prior to the initiation of construction. B. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. RESPONSE: The application states that the development will not have a significant adverse affect on runoff, drainage, erosion or water pollution. The Engineering Department is recommending the submittal of a storm drainage plan to ensure that drainage will not be affected. The Department is also concerned with the proposed amount of contact and disturbance to the existing terrain because the existing home is built on a pier and post system. It is recommended that the applicant submit a site/grading plan indicating restoration and revegatation of the site to reduce the potential of runoff and soil erosion. C. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. RESPONSE: The new residence shall contain no wood burning devices. Gas fireplace and/or certified gas appliances may be installed. D. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. • RESPONSE: No road development is required for this proposal. The home, which is surrounded by very large residences and lodges, will be built into the hillside.. Please see the site plans attachment C. This parcel' is accessed by a tram which will not alter due to redevelopment. Two parking spaces are used for this parcel and are located at Tipple Inn. The Engineering Department has requested documentation authorizing the use of —these parking spaces for Lot 6. E. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. ` RESPONSE: According to the application, natural grade will be retained. - A site/grading plan shall be provided identifying restoration and revegetation of the disturbed area to it original or better condition. F. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. RESPONSE: The proposed development is replacing an existing home. No roads will be required for the home. Construction access will be via a temporary road on Aspen Mountain across Little Nell. Use of this road would require Ski Company and County approval. The applicant shall- provide confirmation that approval to use the road does exist. G. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. RESPONSE: The height of the structure will be within the 30 foot height limit and the new footprint will be 5 0 o greater than the existing structure. The proposed building envelope should be amended so as not to project into the trail. The parcel is surrounded by large development and it is unlikely that redevelopment will impact the scenic backdrop of the mountain. H. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. RESPONSE: Utilities exist on the site. The Water Department has 3 indicated that there is sufficient domestic water for this project. I. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. RESPONSE: The property is served by stairs and a motorized inclinator with 2 parking spaces located in a private parking lot off Galena Street at the Tipple Inn. The Engineering Department has requested a statement authorizing the use of those spaces. J. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. RESPONSE: The Fire Department has indicated that the residence must be sprinkled. K. 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 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan indicates a trail at the base of Little Nell. In addition a pedestrian/nordic trail easement has been recorded for Lot 5 of Tipple Wood subdivision as a link in the trail along the base of the Aspen Mountain ski area linking Shadow Mountain to Ute Avenue. According. to our files a trail easement was to be recorded for Lots 4 and 14 of the subdivision. Please see the attached letter from the representative of the Durant Condominium Association attachment D. The lot split review that split Lot 4 of the Tipple Woods into Lots 4 and 6 did not record the trail easement on the filed plat. The applicant shall amend the plat to indicate the trail and record that easement with the Clerk and Recorder. The applicant shall also revise the building envelope so as to be out of the easement. Conditional Use Review - Pursuant to Section 7-304 the criteria for a conditional use review are as follows: A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be located; and RESPONSE: The proposed one bedroom accessory dwelling unit will be approximately 400-500 sq. ft. and will be at least 50% above grade. It will comply with the provisions of the Housing Guidelines. The unit will be deed restricted as a resident occupied unit for residents of Pitkin County. 4 B. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; and RESPONSE: The surrounding residential and lodging uses are very dense and large. A single family with an accessory dwelling unit• is quite compatible with the surrounding land uses. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properties; and RESPONSE: The unit is contained within the primary structure thereby reducing the visual impact of the structure. D. There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems, and schools; and RESPONSE: There are adequate facilities for this proposal use. E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the incremental need for increased employees generated by the conditional use; and RESPONSE: The proposal includes_an affordable unit for employees of Pitkin County. An increase in employees is not expected by the provision of an accessory dwelling unit. F. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: The conditional use meets the requirements of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and other requirements of this chapter. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends .approval of the 8040 Greenline with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit: a. a site/grading plan, to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department, identifying restoration and revegatation 5 of the .site ; and b. documentation as to the existence and authorized use of two parking places at the Tipple Inn; and C. a sprinkler system plan, for review by the Fire Department; and d. an amended lot split plat indicating the trail easement on the property; and e. a storm drainage plan to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department; and f . confirmation from the Ski Company and County of approval to use the road for construction purposes. 2. If mine waste, or related mining debris are found on site the applicant shall contact the Environmental Health Department prior to the initiation of construction. 3. Prior to the issuance of a foundation permit the applicant shall submit a soils report from a registered soils engineer to be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. 4. No wood burning devices shall be installed. Gas fireplaces and/or certified gas appliances may be installed. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use for the attached accessory dwelling unit with the following conditions: a. Prior to the issuance of any building permits the applicant shall provide a deed restriction to the Housing Authority for approval. The restriction shall state that the accessory unit meets the housing guidelines for such units, meets the definition of Resident Occupied Unit, and shall be rented for periods of six months or longer. Upon approval of the deed restriction by the Housing Authority, the applicant shall record the deed restriction with the Pitkin County Clerk, Recorders office and Planning Department. . A. Engineering referral Comments B. Dr. Lampiris Report C. Site Plans D. Durant Condominium Letter 2 r�ORANDUK TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Roxanne Eflin, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Addition of Exemption Clause to Demolition Provision of HP Code Language and Clarification of Section 7-602 DATE: March 19, 1991 SUMMARY: These amendments are necessary to process prior to the large code clarification/clean up ordinance, due to two projects currently underway in the Commercial. Core. One is the Lane Parcel, associated with the Collins Block; the other is the (former) Alpine Bank Building at 409 E. Hopkins. Neither are historic and are considered non-contributing. The Lane Parcel received Final last year subject to this code amendment; 409 E. Hopkins has only received Conceptual. Both are slated for demo to allow the new development to occur. This code amendment is necessary in order for the HPC to act within the code to allow those projects to proceed. PROCESS: This code amendment is scheduled before the P&Z at a public hearing for March 19. From there it goes to Council for first reading and then on to final reading (public hearing) and adoption. Amendments proposed to Section 7-602 A. General. No demolition, partial demolition or relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the applicable standards of Section 7-602 (B) ,_(C)_ or (D), unless exempted pursuant to Section 7-602(E). The next two paragraphs of this code section should be eliminated. . E. Exemption: The demolition, partial demolition or*relocation of a structure located within an "H" Historic Overlay District may be exempt from meeting the applicable standards inn Section 7- 602(B), (C) , or (D) if the HPC finds that the following conditions have been met: I. The structure is not identified on the' Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures. 2. The structure is considered to be non-contributing to the historic district 3. The structure does not contribute to the overall character of the historic district, and that its demolition, partial demolition, or relocation does not impact the character of the historic district. 4. The demolition, partial demolition or relocation is necessary for the redevelopment of the parcel. S. The redevelopment or new development is reviewed. by HPC. F. (formerly E). Procedure for review. A Development Application shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Officer before HPC approval of demolition, partial. demolition, relocation, (or exemption within an "H" Historic, Overlay District), which shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established. in Common Procedures, Article 6, Division 2. G. (formerly F). Application for Demolition or Relocation. (Language is unchanged. except to eliminate F.2 and "partial demolition" from 5 (a) and 5(b)). H. Application for Partial Demolition or Exemption from Demolition, Partial Demolition or Relocation. A Development application for. partial demolition shall include all items specified in Section 7-602 (G) (1) , (2) , (3 ) and (4). I. (formerly G). Penalties. This is to remain the same. RECORDATION: Approval by vote, or recommendation to staff to bring this item back again for further discussion, amendments and/or approval. memo.hpc.demo.code.amend K LAND USE REGULATIONS § 7-602 (5) A statement of the effect of the details of the proposed development on the original design of the historic structure (if applicable) and character of the neighborhood. 0 (6) A statement of how the final development plan conforms to the representa- tions made during the conceptual review and responds�to any conditions placed thereon. ` (Ord. No. 6-1989, § 9) I Sec. 7-602. Demolition, partial demolition or relocation. A. Gen.eraL No demolition of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless the demolition is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(B). No partial demolition and removal of a portion of any historic landmark or any structure within an "H", Historic Overlay District shall be permitted unless approved by the HPC as necessary for the renovation of the structure, and because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(C), or unless the partial demolition and removal is exempt because it creates no change to the exterior of the structure and has no impact on the character of the structure. No relocation of any structure included in the Inventory of Historic Sites and Structures of the City *of Aspen, established pursuant to Section 7-709, or any structure within an "H" Historic Overlay District, shall be permitted unless the relocation is approved by the HPC because it meets the standards of Section 7-602(DX1) through (4). When deemed appropriate due to the significance of the project, the HPC may require a performance guarantee in a form acceptable to the city attorney as assurance that the demolition, partial demolition, or relocation will be completed as represented. B. Standards for review of demolition. No approval for demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met. 1. The structure proposed for demolition is not structurally sound despite evidence of the owner's efforts to properly maintain the structure; and 2. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and 3. The structure cannot be practicably moved to another site in Aspen; and 4. The applicant demonstrates that the proposal mitigates to the greatest extent prac- tical,' the following: a. Any impacts that occur to the character of the neighborhood where demolition is proposed to occur. b. Any impact on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel and adjacent parcels. c. Any impact to the architectural integrity of the structure or structures located on r' the parcel and adjacent parcels. Supp. No. l 1713 § 7-602 ASPEN CODE - rr C. Standards for review of.P artial demolition. No approval for partial demolition shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The partial demolition is required for the renovation, restoration or rehabilitation of the structure; and 2. The applicant has mitigated, to the greatest extent possible: a. Impacts on the historic importance of the structure or structures located on the parcel. b. Impacts on the architectural integrity of the sti ucture or structures located on the parcel. D. Standards for review of relocation. No approval for relocation shall be granted unless the HPC finds that all of the following standards are met: 1. The structure cannot be rehabilitated or reused on its original site to provide for any reasonable beneficial use of the property; and 2. The relocation activity is demonstrated to be the best preservation method for the character and integrity of the structure, and the historic integrity of the existing neighborhood and adjacent structure will not be diminished due to the relocation; and 3. The structure has been demonstrated to be capable of withstanding the physical impacts of the relocation and re -siting. A structural report shall be submitted by a licensed engineer demonstrating the soundness of the structure proposed for reloca- tion; and 4. A relocation plan shall be submitted, including posting a bond with the engineering department, to insure the safe relocation, preservation and repair (if required) of the structure, site preparation and infrastructure connections. The receiving site shall be prepared in advance of the physical relocation; and 5. The receiving site is compatible in nature to the structure or structures proposed to be moved, the character of the neighborhood is consistent with the architectural integrity of the structure, and the relocation of the historic structure would not diminish the integrity or character of the neighborhood of the receiving site. An acceptance letter from the property owner of the receiving site shall be submitted. E. Procedure for review. A development application shall be submitted to the planning director before HPC approval of demolition, partial demolition or relocation, which shall be reviewed and approved by the HPC pursuant to the procedures established in Common Pro- cedures, Article 6, Division 2. The HPC shall be authorized to suspend action on a demolition, partial demolition or reloca- tion application when it finds that it needs additional information to determine whether the application meets the standards of Section 7-602(B) or that the proposal is a matter of such great public concern to the city that alternatives to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation must be studied jointly by the city and the owner. Alternatives which the HPC may consider having studied shall include, but not be limited to finding economically beneficial uses of the structure, removal of the structure to a suitable location, providing public subsidy Supp. No. 1 1714 LAND USE REGULATIONS § 7-603 to the owner to preserve the structure, identifying a public entity capable of public acquisition of the structure, or revision to the demolition, partial demolition or relocation and develop- ment plan. The HPC shall be required to specify the additional information it requires or the alternatives it finds should be studied when it suspends action on the development, partial demolition or • relocation application. Action shall only be suspended for the amount of time it shall take for the necessary information to be prepared and reviewed by the planning director, but in no case shall suspension be for a period to exceed six (6) months. F. Application for demolition, partial demolition or relocation. A development application for demolition shall include the following: 1. The general application information required in Section 6-202. 2. • The name of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition or relocation. 3. A written description of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition or relocation, and its year of construction. 4. A report from a licensed engineer or architect regarding the soundness of the struc- ture and its suitability for rehabilitation. 5. An economic feasibility report that provides: a. Estimated market value of the property on which the structure lies, in its current condition, and after demolition, partial demolition or relocation. b. Estimates from an architect, developer, real estate agent or appraiser experi- enced in rehabilitation addressing the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the structure proposed for demolition, partial demolition or relocation. c. All appraisals made of the property on which the structure is located made within the previous two (2) years. d. Any other information considered necessary to make a determination whether the property does yield or may yield a reasonable return on investment. 6. A development plan and a statement of the effect of the proposed development on the other structures on the property and the character of the neighborhood around the property shall be submitted in cases when the HPC requires a development plan to evaluate the appropriateness of demolition or when the applicant believes the sub- mission of a development plan will assist in the evaluation of the proposed demolition. G. Penalties. A violation of any portion of this Section 7-602 shall prohibit the owner, successor or assigns from obtaining a building permit for the affected property for a period of five (5) years from the date of such violation. The city shall initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to this effect to insure the enforcement of this penalty. (Ord. No. 17-1989, § 1) Sec. 7-603. Insubstantial amendment of development order. A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order may be authorized by the planning director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineer- Supp. No. 1 1715 March 15, 1991 Box 8178 Aspen, Colorado 81612 Planning and Zoning Commission Pitkin County Aspen, Colorado To the Commission: I am writing in support of the concept of a theatre space on the Snowmelt property as part of Art Park. I have workedin the theatre in Aspen for close to fourteen years. As the Director of the Aspen Playwrights Conference I produced plays in many diverse spaces - the Elks Club, Paepcke Auditorium, the High School Commons, the Octagon Theatre in Snowmass (which we also renovated) and the small amphitheatre behind the Art Museum. And i have directed plays that have been performed Under the Jerome Hotel, under the Mine Company, the Wheeler Opera House and at Aspen Country Day School on the Music School campus. I was on the Board that worked towards, and accomplished the renovation of the Wheeler Opera House and I still sit on that Board. I support the construction of a modest, one hundred and fifty seat theatre with attendant support facilities not because we need another theatre in the community but because we have no facility of this size in which to do the kind of plays (and dance) that require a small intimate theatre. The Aspen Theatre Company fulfills a vital need in our community - presenting plays -that -are uniqueandimportant in any community that prides itself on its cultural diversity - AMERICAN BUFFALO, MISS JULIE, FRANKIN AND JOHNNIE, to name only a few; Che•k-o'v Strindberg, Mamet, McNally, Durang and Gurney are some of the major writers whos works have been seen for the first time since the inception of this Theatre Company as Theatre Under the Jerome. These plays and playwrights should be viewed in intimate venues that offer the opportunity for experimentation and risk because the do not place undo financial burdens on the producers. Storage and construction space is also of vital importance to every theatre group —educational, community and professional, from the MAA to the Elementary School. I would be more than happy to discuss these matters with.you in person. In the meantime thank you for considering the idea of,a theatre in Art Park. Sincerely William Shorr Int�:t'11t1tJi1��1 Desl(Il Coi_d6rcnce 111 Aspen 201 East 32nd Street New Yoj 1 ,:STY W 16 212.685 0990 Day• 212.684 4457 Night/FAX i = P.O. Box 664 Aspen, Colorado 81612 >03.92> 22. 7 303.9201167 FAX Board of Directors: Milton Glaser, President j ulian Beinart Ralph Caplan Jai- Chiat Patricia Conway Michael Crichton Niels Diffrient Richard Farson Mildred Friedman Naneve Green W'endv Revs MargaretMarshall Laurie Olin Michael Rotondi ;ank Stanton ne Thompson enry lVolf _'ianfranco Zaccai March 19, 1991 Carol Loewenstern The Aspen Theatre Company P.O: Box 8677 Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Carol: All of us at IDCA are very excited about the Aspen Theatre Company's plans for a new, permanent facility to be constructed at the Art Park. IDCA would be interested in using your new facility for proposed workshops, performances, panel discussions, etc.This new space will certainly help accommodate our growing program needs, and we very much support the proposed facility. Aspen has become renowned for the wide range of cultural and educational activities offered here, and the addition of the Aspen Theatre_Company's proposed -new facility will greatly benefit all of us dedicated to maintaining excellent programs and facilities. Sincerely, Deborah Murphy Aspen Coordinator DIM/h Deborah Murphy, Aspen Coordinator Joan Scherman, NY Coordinator