HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19901204
I'
c
ro-
\",..,
AGENDA
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
REGULAR MEETING
December 4, 1990, Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
2nd Floor Meeting Room
City Hall
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
Public
II. MINUTES
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Silver City Grill Conditional Use Review
B 1000 East Hopkins Avenue
IV. NEW BUSINESS
A. County Referral -- Health & Human Services Bldg.
VI. ADJOURN
a.cov
~
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: Silver City Grill Conditional Use
DATE: December 4, 1990
SUMMARY: The applicant seeks to operate a restaurant in the C-1
Zone District. A restaurant is a conditional use in this zone.
The applicant has bought the lease for the space once occupied by
Lauretta's. There is no record of a conditional use approval for
Lauretta's. Staff believes that the Commission's caution
regarding restaurants in the C-1 zone and the lack of a
conditional use for this restaurant space necessitates a review
of this proposal.
APPLICANT: Phil Weir
LOCATION: 308 South Hunter Street
ZONING: C-1
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: To operate a restaurant for lunch and
dinner.
Environmental Health: Maria Cook of the Environmental Health
Department, reviewed the application and commented that the
applicant's proposed seating capacity of 24 seats does not
conflict with the previously approved seating in consideration
for the available toilet facility of the former food service
operation. If the applicant were to change the proposed Flat -
Griddle type of operation the installation would not be approved
without the use of an alternate emission -control device. In
addition the ventilation -system installation must meet the
requirements of the 19988 Uniform Mechanical Code.
Please see the attached referral comments.
STAFF COPOIENTS: The applicant proposes to begin operation of a
hamburger restaurant including take-out in a location that was
recently occupied by a food establishment, Lauretta's. Prior to
Lauretta's, the Yogurt Cafe occupied this space. There is no
record of conditional use approval for either of these
establishments. However in 1977 a conditional use 'was granted
for the Chocolate Solider. The Chocolate Soldier was the first
occupant of the newly constructed space and was a candy store.
In 1977 staff's general concern was with food service uses that
utilized "sit-down restaurant service". There were no conditions
of approval with the 1977 approval.
Technically the changing uses that have occurred ;in that space
after the Chocolate Soldier should have been an amendment to the
1977 conditional use approval. Staff believes that because a
food service operation never received a formal conditional use
review that the changing ownership precipitates review by the
Commission. As conditional uses change hands, there may be a
tendency to intensify or alter the intent of the use. For
example: increase the number of employees and/or shift from a
local oriented use to a more tourist oriented business thus
becoming incompatible with the intent and goals of the C-1 Zone
District.
Section 7-304 of the Land Use Code sets out the standards for
conditional use review:
A. The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan,
and with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed
to be located.
RESPONSE: According to the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan the
location of the proposed restaurant is within .the Central Area.
The purpose of the Central Area is to allow commercial activity.
The purpose of the C-1 Zone District is to provide for the
establishment of commercial uses which are not primarily oriented
toward servicing the tourist population. The recent business was
a popular local oriented food establishment. . The proposed
restaurant has committed to serving the local population. The
applicant intends to provide hamburger, shakes, fries, hot dogs
and beer in a price range of $3.25 to $5.00. Phil proposes to
offer quick take-out service for locals with limited seating, not
to exceed 24 seats.
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 space was a restaurant and there is another
restaurant directly below. The location of this space is across
the street from the CC zone and is within the vicinity of other
commercial activity and at the end of the building which abuts
the alley. There are no residential uses within proximity of
this building. The location of this use is within easy walking
distance for employees who work within the center of town.
6
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: A restaurant has operated in this location for several
years. Before Lauretta's, the Yogurt Cafe operated in this
space. It is anticipated that the change in restaurant operation
will not create additional impacts. The space, 700 square feet,
will not be expanded for this new business.
The configuration of the building and the space proposed for the
Silver Grill is situated in such a manner that the exhaust system
vents to a side of the building that is relatively isolated from
other human activity or building windows. The Environmental
Health Department has noted that is the applicant were to change
the Flat Griddle operation for a Charbroiler type unit, the
installation will not be approved without the use of an alternate
emission -control device such as an electrostatic precipitator,
grooved griddle or afterburners.
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: No expansion of the space is proposed only an interior
remodel. According to the Environmental Health Department, the
existing public facilities are adequate to service the proposal.
E. The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet
the incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use.
RESPONSE: According to the application there will be a total of
5 employees including the owner equaling 2.5 full time employees.
The affordable housing criterion requires an applicant to supply
housing to meet the incremental need. According to an affidavit
from Lauretta she employed 9 full-time employees. .Although the
employee base for a food service business was never assessed,
staff does not believe that the changing ownership of this
commercial space should now compensate for the lack of
enforcement in the past. In addition, as the standard above
indicates, an applicant shall only be required to mitigate the
incremental increase in employees. This change in operation
represents a downsize of the previous use. If the restaurant
begins to employ more than 9 full-time employees than the
applicant should be required to mitigate the housing impacts. A
cash -in -lieu payment of $35,000 per employee (low-income
3
category) may be used or off -site housing may be purchased to
mitigate the impacts.
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 proposal is only a change in the type of food -
service provided with some minor interior remodeling. The use
complies with the goals of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and
meets all the applicable requirements of the Land Use Code.
This conditional use review should, however establish as a base
line for future reivews the number of employees and number of
customer seating: 5 employees and 24 seats. Any intensification
in operation that proposes to increase either the employee base
or number of seats would require an amendment to this conditional
use.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning
and Zoning Commission approve the conditional use with the
following conditions:
1. Odor complaints shall require review and monitoring of the
restaurant. Emission control devices may be required.
2. If the applicant were to change the proposed Flat -Griddle
type of operation the installation would not be approved without
the use of an alternate emission -control device. In addition the
ventilation -system installation must meet the requirements of the
1988 Uniform Mechanical Code.
3. If the restaurant begins to employ more than "9 full-time
employees then the applicant shall be required to mitigate the
housing impacts. A cash -in -lieu payment of $35,000 per employee
(or current amount as indexed by the Housing Authority) may be
used or off -site housing may be purchased to mitigate the
impacts.
4. This conditional use establishes a base line operation for
this commercial space of 9' full-time employees and 24 customers
seats. Any upgrade in service e.g. number of employees or seats
shall constitute a change to the conditional use and shall
require an amendment to this conditional use approval.
4
core or public recreational facilities in the City.
Given the location of this project approximately 5 blocks from
the commercial core, it is reasonable to expect that auto trip
generation will be lower than average for this type of use. It
should be clear to prospective residents that parking is limited
on -site. Parking spaces for each unit should be designated
within the garage.
GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of 4 Units and Construction of
4 Deed Restricted Units:
The Planning Director has the authority to grant exemption for
reconstruction of dwelling units as long as no additional units
are created and housing replacement requirements are met. Staff
will prepare the appropriate document for the Planning Director's
signature.
The City Council is requested to grant exemption for the four
affordable housing units. These shall be deed restricted
according to the terms of the Settlement.
Vesting of Development Rights:
The applicant will request that City Council grant vested
development rights for a period of three years.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the
proposed multi -family development with the following conditions:
Prior to this project being scheduled for review by City Council:
1. The applicant shall submit a plat to Engineering for their
comments.
Prior to filing the Subdivision/PUD Plat:
2. A Subdivision Agreement shall be filed concurrently with the
Final Plat.
3. The Final Plat shall dedicate a fisherman's easements in the
Roaring Fork River including the land along the bank measured 5
feet horizontally .
r
4. A 15' trail easement being bounded on the north by the 100
year floodplain line shall be dedicated on the plat.
5. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20'
distance from the property line.
6. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and
sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right-
7
of -way .
7. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
S. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line replacement as
determined by the Sanitation District.
9. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line
maintenance.
10. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand
interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the
sanitary sewer.
11. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and
installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirements.
12. The applicant shall reduce the floor area of the free market
units to 3,000 s.f. to conform to the terms of the Settlement and
deed restrict two units to category.#2, one unit to category #3',
and one unit to category #4. If reducing the free market area is
not acceptable to the applicant, the four affordable housing
units shall be indexed to the Housing Guidelines for category #1
occupancy.
13. Vegetation protection and erosion control methods (fences,
haybales, etc.) shall be installed at the perimeter'of parcel 1
prior to any excavation or clearing and shall remain throughout
construction.
14. Tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Parks
Department prior to removal of any tree 6 inch caliper or over.
15. The parking spaces shall be assigned to units on the
Subdivision/PUD Plat as well as in the garage. Four spaces are
allotted for the affordable units, eight to the free market
units.
16. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GMQS Exemption for
the four free market replacement dwelling units.
The Final Subdivision/PUD Plat complying with all Engineering
standards contained in Section 7-1004 D.2.a. shall be filed with
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of
approval by City Council.
Attachments: "A" - Litigation Settlement Summary, Myler, Stuller
& Schwartz, 4/10/90
"B" - Development Data, Architectural and Site Plans
"C" - Referral Comments jtkvj/1000hop.memo
8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: 1000 East Hopkins: Consolidated two-step Subdivision/
PUD Review (public hearing), and Stream Margin Review
DATE: November 26, 1990
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of this project
with conditions. This development proposal is based on resolution
of a suit (the Settlement) between the City of Aspen and the
property owner.
APPLICANT: Valley Hi Development Trust, represented by Sunny
Vann
LOCATION: 1000 East Hopkins, Lots A and K Block 25 and lots H, I
and S Block 26, Townsite of Aspen. The parcels include the
abandoned Cleveland St. r.o.w.
ZONING: Block 25: R/MF, Block 26: R-15
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: In order to redevelop the property, the
applicant requests Subdivision and PUD approval, Stream Margin
Review, and GMQS Exemption for reconstruction of 4 of the
existing Valley. Hi units as well as 4 affordable housing units.
The project will also request from Council vesting of development
rights for three years.
As part of the Settlement, it was agreed that the review for PUD
approval will be consolidated. into a two-step process. Public
Hearings will be held at both Planning Commission and City
Council. Please see Attachment "A" for Settlement summary.
Attachment "B" contains Development Data, site and architectural
plans.
REFERRAL CONKEWS: Complete referral memos are compiled in
Attachment "C". Highlights are as follows:
Engineering:
- Garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20' distance
from the property line.
- The proposed trail easement should be 15' wide with north
boundary coinciding with the 100 year floodplain boundary.
- Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter
improvements, and any other work in the public R.O.W.
- A 5' fisherman's. easement along the riverbank is recommended.
1
- The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
- A Final Plat must be submitted and approved by Engineering
prior to this application being scheduled for review by City
Council. I
Sanitation District:
- Treatment capacity is sufficient.
- Line replacement for collection system used by this project
will cost the applicant approximately $20,000.
- Access right-of-way for heavy equipment must be provided for
line maintenance.
- Drainage design for garage shall include oil and sand
interceptor. Surface run-off shall not enter sanitary sewer.
Fire Marshal:
- Residential sprinkler system shall be installed.
- Fire alarm system shall be installed.
Water:
- Development not to exceed 211 domestic line, not including
irrigation.
- No credit will be given for old tap fees.
Housing Authority:
The Settlement conflicts with Housing Guidelines on several
points: the percentage of replacement with affordable housing
units; the affordable units offered for sale to the free market
unit owners for first refusal; net livable square footage of the
affordable units (750 s.f.) qualifies for low-income only; and
the cash -in -lieu payment of $45,000 for 3 bedrooms does not meet
the Housing Authority's guidelines for 5.25 low-income employees.
Recognizing that this proposal results from a negotiated
settlement, Housing staff would hope that GMQS Exemption be
granted with the following conditions of approval:
- The affordable units be sold or rented to qualified moderate
income employees as defined by the guidelines in effect at the
time of sale or rental of the units.
- Cash -in -lieu payment for '5.25 low income employees be made
(current calculation: $183,750) prior to issuance of Building
Permit.
- Increase the size of the affordable units to 1,000 s.f. so that
they meet Housing Guidelines for moderate income units. .
PROPOSAL: This project calls razing the existing 22 unit Valley
Hi Apartments. New development will consist of a multi -family
structure including 4 three -bedroom free market units (3,345-s.f.
K
each) and 4 two -bedroom affordable housing units (750 s.f. each).
The Settlement requires that three of the units be indexed as
"moderate", and one be indexed as "middle" income units. Twelve
parking spaces will be provided underground at one space per
affordable unit, two spaces per free market unit. The Settlement
provides that the project will be reviewed as a Planned Unit
Development in order to permit dimensional and parking variances.
The project seeks variance to the rear yard setback (zero setback
on parcel 1) and building height (two feet). The R/MF parking
requirement is one space per bedroom. This would be 20 spaces
except that the Settlement requires that only 12 spaces must be
provided.
STAFF COMMENTS: According to the terms of the Settlement, the 4
free market units were to be 3,000 s.f. each. The application
proposes each of these units to be 31345 s.f. This is
inconsistent with the Settlement. In light of comments from
Housing regarding the insufficient size of the affordable units
if indexed as Category 2,3 or 4 (Moderate and Middle), staff
feels that the free market units should be reduced and the size
of the affordable units increased to comply with the Housing
standards for net livable area. If this is not architecturally
possible, then the affordable units should be indexed at Category
1 Low income units for determining sale or rental rates. If this
option is not agreed to by the applicant, then the free market
units should be reduced to 3,000 s.f. each_as per the Settlement
terms.
With, either option, it should be noted that at the time the
Settlement was developed,there were only three housing index
categories for deed restricted units: low, moderate, and middle.
Four categories are currently used by the Housing Authority: #1-
low; #2 and #3 - moderate; and #4 - middle. In the spirit of the
intent of the Settlement, Planning staff recommends that if all
four units are not indexed as low income units, they now be
indexed to today's categories as follows: two units as category
#2, one unit as category #3, and the fourth unit at category #4.
The 1.1:1 FAR on parcel 1 granted by the Settlement is
approximately 14,800 s.f. Of the additional .1 FAR allowed by
special review criteria, 2/3 must be used for affordable housing.
This equals 893 s.f. which is exceeded with the 1,500 above -grade
FAR of the affordable units. Density/lot area requirements for
the R/MF zone have been met with this application.
Stream Marton Review: The Planning Commission shall review the
proposal for compliance with the review criteria listed in
Section 7-504 of the Land Use Code:
No development shall be permitted within one hundred feet (1001),
measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring
Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood
3
Hazard Area where it extends beyond one hundred feet (100') from
the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary
streams, unless the Commission makes a determination that the
proposed development complies with all the standards set forth
below.
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: The development takes place entirely on parcel 1 and
is not is not located in the Special Flood Hazard Area. The
building envelope is approximately 12' higher than the 100 year
flood elevation.
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: An existing (but not dedicated) footpath exists along
the river on parcel 2. The applicant proposes to dedicate and
describe an easement for this trail on the final subdivision
plat. Engineering requires this easement be 15' wide and
recommends that it parallel the 100 year floodplain boundary.
Also recommended is the dedication of a fisherman's easement in
the river including 5' of bank, measured horizontally.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are
implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practicable.
RESPONSE: Keeping parcel 2 in 'its natural state complies with
the intent of the Plan to maintain riparian vegetation -and animal
habitats.
4. No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that
produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
RESPONSE: The application states that substantial vegetation
must be removed on parcel 1. However, the construction is far
enough from the stream bank to have any direct impact on the
river. Erosion control techniques (haybales etc.) are offered by
the applicant to prevent sedimentation of the river. Staff also
recommends that barrier fencing be placed along the perimeter of
parcel 1 to keep men and machinery out of the slope areas.
4
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 project is too far from the river to have any
impact to the river course. Drainage requirements address site
generated runoff pollution.
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 notice is required as no alteration is proposed.
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: As no alteration is proposed, a specific guarantee is
needed.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year
floodplain.
RESPONSE: The project is not in the 100 year floodplain.
Subdivision: Section 7-1004 C. describes the review standards
for any land to be used for multi -family or condominium use.
In summary, the application conforms to the general review
standards for Subdivision. It is consistent with the 1973 Land
Use Plan and character of existing land uses in the neighborhood.
The. Settlement determined those project elements non -conforming
to R/MF standards which may receive variances within the PUD
review framework. Otherwise, the project complies with the R/MF
requirements and Stream Margin Review criteria.
The proposed subdivision does not create any governmental
inefficiencies, duplication of facilities, or unnecessary public
costs. All costs for utility extensions as well as the line
repairs noted in the 10/30/90 referral comments from the
Sanitation'District will be paid by the applicant. The applicant
is attentive to easement needs and clearances for the sewer line
on adjacent property to the east and in the alley.
Sidewalks are proposed to be in compliance with the Pedestrian
and Bikeway Plan. Curb and gutter will be installed along the
street.
5
The project is served by two fire hydrants. The Fire Marshal
also indicates that the building must be sprinklered and served
by an alarm system.
Historic drainage flows will be maintained with', drywells and
surface detention. A detailed drainage plan will be submitted
with the final subdivision plat.
Planned Unit Development Review:
The Settlement dictates that this project be reviewed as a PUD to
permit variances to the rear yard setback, maximum height, and
minimum parking requirement. Sections 7-903B.4. and 5. allow
for these variances. The project is mostly consistent with the
basic requirements and review standards for PUDs which are
similar to the standards already reviewed for Subdivision. The
application does not address a development schedule. However,
project representative Sunny Vann verbally indicated that
construction will take place next spring pending real estate
market activity. As the project seeks three year vested rights
status from Council, the project must be constructed within that
time frame in order to retain the development right under this
approval.
The requested yard and height variances are to facilitate the
location of the affordable units. The rear of the structure
rests directly on the property line abutting the undeveloped
alley for a zero setback. There will be little impacts to
adjacent properties resulting from the rear setback variance.
The height variance accommodates the affordable units at the rear
of the structure. It is difficult to determine if the requested
variance extends towards the street to include the living area of
the free market units. It appears that the building design would
still work even if the height of the free market living room had
to be lowered to comply with the 251 R/MF height limit.
Required parking may be varied within a PUD review. The parking
requirement in the R/MF zone is one space per bedroom (20 spaces
for this proposal.) The Settlement declares that 12 spaces must
be provided. Five standards must be considered for a PUD parking
variance:
a. The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed
development.
b. The parking needs of any non-residential uses.
C. The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of
common parking is proposed.
d. The availability of public transportation facilities,
including those for pedestrian access And/or the commitment
to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the
proposed development.
e. The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial
2.1
core or public recreational facilities in the City.
Given the location of this project approximately 5 blocks from
the commercial core, it is reasonable to expect that auto trip
generation will be lower than average for this type of use. It
should be clear to prospective residents that parking is limited
on -site. Parking spaces for each unit should be designated
within the garage.
GMQS Exemption for Reconstruction of 4 Units and Construction of
4 Deed Restricted Units:
The Planning Director has the authority to grant exemption for
reconstruction of dwelling units as long as no additional units
are created and housing replacement requirements are met. Staff
will prepare the appropriate document for the Planning Director's
signature.
The City Council is requested to grant exemption for the four
affordable housing units. These shall be deed restricted
according to the terms of the Settlement.
Vesting of Development Rights:
The applicant will request that City Council grant vested
development rights for a period of three years.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff recommends approval of the
proposed multi -family development with the following conditions:
Prior to this project being scheduled for review by City Council:
1. The applicant shall submit a plat to Engineering for their
comments. '
Prior to filing the Subdivision/PUD Plat:
2. A Subdivision Agreement shall be -filed concurrently with the
Final Plat.
3. The Final Plat shall dedicate a fisherman's easements in the
Roaring Fork River including the land along the bank measured 5
feet horizontally .
4. A 15' trail easement being bounded on the north by the 100
year floodplain line shall be dedicated on the plat.
5. The garage entry drive must not exceed 12% grade for a 20'
distance from the property line.
6. Excavation permits are required for curb and gutter and
sidewalk improvements and for any other work in the public right-
7
of -way.
7. The applicant shall agree to join a Special Improvement
District if one is ever formed.
8. The Applicant shall pay for sewer line replacement as
determined by the Sanitation District.
9. Heavy vehicle access must be provided for sewer line
maintenance.
10. The drainage plan for the site shall include oil and sand
interceptors for the garage. Surface run-off shall not enter the
sanitary sewer.
11. Fire alarm and sprinkler systems shall be designed and
installed as per the Fire Marshal's requirements.
12. The applicant shall reduce the floor area of the free market
units to 3,000 s.f. to conform to the terms of the Settlement and
deed restrict two units to category #2, one unit to category #3,
and one unit to category #4. If reducing the free market area is
not acceptable to the applicant, the four affordable housing
units shall be indexed to the Housing Guidelines for category #1
occupancy.
13. Vegetation protection and erosion control methods (fences,
haybales, etc.) shall be installed at the perimeter'of parcel 1
prior to any excavation or clearing and shall remain throughout
construction.
14. Tree removal permits shall be obtained from the Parks
Department prior to removal of any tree 6 inch caliper or over.
15. The parking spaces shall be assigned to units on the
Subdivision/PUD Plat as well as in the garage. Four spaces are
allotted for the affordable units, eight to the free market
units.
16. The Planning Director shall sign off on a GMQS Exemption for
the four free market replacement dwelling units.
The Final Subdivision/PUD Plat complying with all Engineering
standards contained in Section 7-1004 D.2.a. shall be filed with
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office within 180 days of
approval by City Council.
Attachments: "A" - Litigation Settlement Summary, Myler, Stuller
& Schwartz, 4/10/90
"B" - Development Data, Architectural and Site Plans
"C" - Referral Comments jtkvj/1000hop.memo
8