HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19880705
t .' -.:--
Cl,/
AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
July 5, 1988 - Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
Old City Council Chambers
2nd Floor
City Hall
REGULAR MEETING
----------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
Commissioners
Planning Staff
II. MINUTES
June 7, 1988
III. RESOLUTION
A. Recommending Denial of Bell Mountain Lodge Rezoning
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
A. CBS Subdivision
V. NEW BUSINESS
A. Villa of Aspen Townhouses PUD Amendment
B. Lee Stream Margin Review
VI. ADJOURN MEETING
s
s
x
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:, Cindy Houben, Planning Office
RE: Lee Stream Margin Review
DATE: July 5, 1988
REQUEST: Approval of a Stream Margin Review to enlarge an.
existing deck and add a lower deck adjacent to the river.
APPLICANT: Harlan Lee.
LOCATION: Lot 12 Calderwood Subdivision, 1106 Waters Ave.
HISTORY: The Planning Commission has approved two other stream
margin reviews for this parcel. The most recent review was in
October of 1987 for additions to an existing house. Prior to
that review, the applicants were granted stream margin review
approval in 1978 for additions to the original house.
The following were conditions of approval for the 1987 review:
1) Revised foundation and site coverage plans shall be prepared
which continue to leave the steep slope of the river bank
undisturbed and eliminate the need to remove more than the
four cottonwood trees identified.
2) The applicant shall replant, or replace with new trees the
four cottonwood trees prior to occupancy of the addition. A
revised site plan showing relocation of three cottonwood
trees, specifying the caliper at a minimum of 2 1/2" - 311,
and planting one blue spruce a minimum of 8' tall shall be
submitted to the satisfaction of the Planning Office priori
to issuance of a Building Permit.
3) The lower deck shall either be removed or anchored for the
purpose of not breaking loose in case of a flood. Design of
the anchoring shall be approved by a professional engineer
and it shall be installed prior to occupancy of the
addition.
4) Excavation and construction techniques shall be specified in
the Building Permit application to ensure to the
satisfaction of the Building Department, that no undue
disturbance of the stream bank or to the Roaring Fork River
will result.
s
The applicants are now in the process of putting on the additions
which were approved in 1987 and are in the process of satisfying
the conditions as listed above. During this review process the
applicants requested that we review condition number 2 above. The
size of the -required trees have a larger root base than can be
placed next to the house. In addition, the approved location of
the 8spruce tree is situated on a steep slope down to the
river. In order to place the tree in the approved location the
bank would have to be disturbed and revegetated. The Planning
Office has determined that due to site constraints the applicants
may substitute 5 smaller cottonwoods for the 3 larger cottonwoods
to be placed along the side of the house. The Planning Office
has also determined that it is more appropriate to locate 3
smaller spruce trees on the slope rather than the one 8' tree.
The smaller trees can be hand carried and planted thereby causing
less damage to the bank.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
The applicants are proposing to construct a 610 square foot deck
on the back side of their house along the Roaring Fork River.
This deck is above. the 100 year flood boundary. The applicants
are also proposing to reconstruct a deck which is adjacent to the
river along the 100 year flood boundary line.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1) Engineering Department: Jim Gibbard of the Engineering
Department notes the following concerns in his attached
memorandums:
a. The high water line needs to be drawn and labeled.
b. The proposed addition to the deck needs to be shown
more clearly on the plat.
r
C. The four caisson foundations proposed for the support
of the deck should be placed so they will not damage
the root systems of the trees that currently penetrate
the existing deck.
d. The design of the anchor of the deck at the river shall
be approved by a professional engineer.
STAFF COMMENTS: Section 24-6.3(e) of the old Code requires that
the application for stream margin review respond to the
following criteria:
1) Criteria: No development shall occur within a special flood
hazard area unless it can be demonstrated that there will be
no increase in base flood elevation as a result of the
development, as shown by an elevation certificate prepared
2
r
relocated, the applicant and applicant's heirs, successors
and assigns shall provide maintenance to assure that the
floor carrying capacity is not diminished.
Criteria: Copies shall be submitted of all necessary federal
and state permits relating to work within the one hundred
year floodplain.
Response: No federal permits are required for this proposal
and no alteration of the stream will occur as a result of
this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the
Stream Margin Review for the Lee parcel with the following
conditions:
1) All representations of the applicant shall be considered
conditions of approval.
2) Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the deck, the
applicants shall plant 5 cottonwoods along the east side of
the house. In addition, 3 spruces shall be planted on the
slope between the house and the river.
3) The following shall be supplied to the Engineering
Department and Planning Office prior to issuance of a
building permit for the deck:
a. The high water line shall be placed on the plat.
b. The proposed deck needs to be shown clearly on the
plat.
c. Written confirmation from a landscape canape that the
---� four caisson foundations proposed for the support of
the deck will be placed so they will not damage the
root systems of the trees that currently penetrate the
existing deck.
d. The design of the anchoring of the new deck at the
river shall be approved by a professional engineer.
CH.LEESMR
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
RE: CBS Preliminary Subdivision/Public Hearing
DATE: July 5, 1988
APPLICANT: Fifty Seven, Inc.
REQUEST: Approval of a preliminary subdivision review for the
resubdivision of lots 10-16 Block 28.
ZONING: Office (0).
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: This application is made pursuant to
Section 20-19.of the old Aspen Municipal Code. The request is to
except the development from the conceptual subdivision review
stage since such review serves no public benefit and no major
issues are involved in this request. (The new Code allows an
application of this nature to go through a 2 step process
submitting only final plans to both the Planning Commission and
the City Council). The Planning Office agrees with this
approach. Therefore, the application before you is the
preliminary review of the CBS subdivision. The City Council will
review the final plat.
The applicants are proposing to demolish the existing
residential units on site (the exact number of existing units is
being verified by the Zoning Official at this time. The Planning
Office feels confident that there are at least 6 units which may
be used as replacement units for this proposal). The application
is to resubdivide the existing 2 lots into 3, 6000+ square feet
lots. and build 3 duplex townhome structures (see attached maps
for existing conditions and proposed site plan). The development
data for the.proposal is as follows:
1. Existing Zoning
Office (0)
2. Total site area(there are two existing parcels)
parcel 1 6000 sq. ft.
parcel 2 15000 sq. ft.
Total 21000 sq. ft.
Y
3. Min. required lot size 6000 sq. ft.
4. Min. required lot area/ 6000 sq. ft.
duplex unit
5. Proposed lot area
lot 1 6,600 sq. ft.
lot 2 7,800 sq. ft.
lot 3 6,600 sq. ft.
6. Open Space requirement none
7. Proposed open space
lot 1
4,150
sq.
ft./ 63%
lot 2
4,950
sq.
ft./ 63 %
lot 3
4,100
sq.
ft./ 62%
8. Proposed # of Bedrooms
18
(6 three bedroom units)
9. Proposed Parking spaces
24
(18
required)
The townhouse units are proposed to be similar in design and
will each contain approximately 2,500 - 3,000 sq. ft. The
parking is proposed to access off the existing alley. Two spaces
for each unit will be provided in covered garages and two spaces
will be provided on the paved aprons of the two car garages. Thus
four parking spaces are provided per unit. Sidewalks will be
built along the property lines on Spring and Hopkins Street
pursuant to the regulations of the Code. Curb and gutter will be
replaced along those streets where necessary. A handicap access
ramp will be provided at the corner. of Spring and Hopkins. Two
dumpsters will be provided in two enclosed trash areas adjacent
to the alley at the rear of the site.
As noted in the above chart, no open space is required . The
applicants are, however, providing approximately 62-63% of open
space on each of the lots. The proposal includes landscaping and
partial fencing of the parcels. The applicant states that this
fence will be a low fence perhaps of a rod iron type. The Parks
Department has inspected the property and determined that
several of the large cottonwoods on the site are diseased. The
applicants propose to remove these prior to construction (see
attached site plan).
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
1. Fire Marshal: Wayne Vandemark notes that the property is
within a three minute response time and can adequately be
2
served in the event of a fire.
2. Engineering: Elyse Elliott of the Engineering Department
made the following comments in a memorandum dated May 12,
1988:
* Utilities are in place to serve the proposed project.
* The applicants must submit drainage plans which retain
the historic flow rates on the property and the
Engineering Department must approve any drywell design.
* The applicants must submit a plat in accordance with
the requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code.
* The covered garage parking spaces must be of a size in
accordance with the Code requirements.
* Sidewalks and all right-of-way areas must conform to
the streetscape guidelines and all pertinent
regulations of the Engineering Department.
* During construction, the applicants must coordinate
with the Engineering Department with regard to any
disruption to pedestrian and vehicle circulation.
* Paving of the alley is not required, however, is
recommended by the Engineering Department.
3. Aspen Water Department: In a memorandum dated May 18, 1988,
Jim Markalunas notes that there is adequate water to serve
the development. He also states that the service lines -must
be inspected in order to determine whether or not they need
to be replaced.
4. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: In a memorandum
from Heiko Kuhn, he notes that there are several breaks in
the line serving this property which must be repaired by the
applicant prior to service by the ACSD.
PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS:
1. The proposal conforms to the zone district requirements of
the O zone with regard to area, bulk and uses. The proposed
lot sizes are generally consistent with the surrounding
area.
2. Section 7-1004 of the Code states the review standards for a
subdivision. These are as follows :
CRITERIA:
3
a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The proposal is located in the central area as
designated on the 1973 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. The
following is taken from the plan:
Central Area: To allow the primary use of land for tourist
commercial activity that is essential to the community's
economic vitality in an area that relates well to the
proposed public transportation system, the ski areas and
existing tourist oriented businesses. Ordered yet
diversified land uses, such as resident related commercial,
residential and professional office uses, should be located
on the fringe of the central area. Urban design
consideration is an essential element of future development
or redevelopment of the central area and is necessary to
take advantage of the unusual opportunities presented by its
historic heritage and the relationship of the central area
and Aspen Mountain.. This design element includes as primary
concerns the preservation of historic sites, structures and
mountain views, implementation of tree planting programs, as
well as expansion of the pedestrian oriented mall area.
The Plan does not preclude this type of residential
development, however, it does note that it should be
resident related. The Planning staff questions the
affordability of the proposed structures for the residents
of Aspen, but recognizes that there are no regulations
implementing this policy of the 1973 Plan.
CRITERIA:
b. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of the existing land uses in the area.
RESPONSE: The existing uses in the area are primarily single
family, duplex and multi family structures. The proposed
duplex use is consistent with these uses.
CRITERIA:
C. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: The proposal will further encourage the re-
development of the east end of town as a second home
(townhome) market. Historically this area has been a mixed
neighborhood containing local residences as well as
condominiumized second home and short term accommodations.
While this type of development may not be a desirable one
for the community, there are no regulations prohibiting it
4
from occurring. Please be aware that we are currently
looking at writing displacement regulations which would
address this problem.
CRITERIA:
d. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with
all applicable requirements of this chapter.
RESPONSE:
The application is in conformance with the requirements of
this chapter with regard to use, bulk and services.
The Planning Office would like to remind the Commission that in
1987 we recommended that single-family and duplex residences in
the 0 zone be subject to the sliding scale and not be eligible
for the 0.75:1 FAR of the district. You did not support this
recommendation. Based on the current development fever on the
east side of town, we suggest you think about directing us to
pursue the 0 and C-1 zones with regard to the sliding scale.
3. Section 20-9 of the old Code and Section 7-1004 of the
existing Code refer to the suitability of land for
subdivision.
a. Land Suitability - The proposal is not located on land
which has environmental concerns with regard to mud
flow, flooding or other natural hazards.
b. Spatial Pattern Efficient - The proposal is not
located on land which will cause inefficiency with
regard to duplication or premature extensions of
utilities and unnecessary public costs.
4. Section 20-16 of the old Code and Section 7-1004(3) of the
new Code refer to Improvements which are required by the
developer. The Engineering Department has reviewed these in
their comments listed above. These improvements are
required by ,the Code for new subdivisions and must be
provided by the applicants to the approval of the
Engineering Department. Most of these details have not yet
been provided by the applicant and are required to be
adequately addressed at final plat.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning office recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the CBS Subdivision Preliminary
Submittal to the City Council with the following conditions:
1. All representations of the applicant shall be considered
conditions of approval.
5
2. The applicant shall submit all requirements of final plat in
accordance with the Aspen Municipal Code (old Code).
3. The applicants shall be responsible for the replacement of
any service lines (water and sewer) to the property which
need repair or replacement . � �--AY"-\
4. The applicant shall submit drainage plans which retain
historic flow rates on the property.
5. The applicants__ shall ---pave --the _alley_ . way which accesses -the
parcel.
CH. CBS
R
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Tom Baker, Principal Planner J6
RE: Aspen Villas PUD Amendment
DATE: June 29, 1988
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the requested amendment
with conditions.
APPLICANT: Aspen Villas Townhouse Condominium Association
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: C. Welton Anderson
LOCATION: Eighth Street between Hallam and Main,(see exhibit 1).
ZONING: R-MF PUD, (see exhibit 1):
PARCEL SIZE: 100,188 square feet, excluding the steep slope and
valley floor.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: This development is part of
Aspen's west end neighborhood. The neighborhood is essentially a
mix of single-family and multi -family residential with nearby
lodge and restaurant uses along the SH 82/Main Street corridor.
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: PUD Amendment, (see exhibit 2). The
applicant proposes to update the design of the Villas, to remedy
some existing design flaws and to provide the opportunity for
modest expansions at the option of individual owners. This would
include enclosing of existing balconies and expanding existing
bedrooms and living areas; new decks may also be added and
carports similar to the type found in Snowmass Village are
proposed.
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Engineering Department states that the
plat must conform with the Municipal Code, (see exhibit 3).
STAFF COMMENTS: The criteria which the staff will use to
evaluate this amendment as provided in the new Code, is whether
the amendment is consistent with the basic intent of the original
PUD. The record of the original intent of this PUD is
incomplete; however, the staff feels that the intent was to
cluster the housing and parking to create a multi -family
environment which takes best advantage of open space associated
with the development. More specifically, staff will review the
amendment's effect on character, visual impact, landscaping,
FAR, density, open space and transportation impacts.
Character- The staff finds that the proposed changes to the
PUD do not compromise the general character of the
development, that is the development will still be a multi-
family, clustered, residential development similar in scale
to what currently exists.
Visual Impact- Staff feels that the view from Hallam Street
provides the greatest exposure to people travelling through
the area and, therefore, the Hallam units have the greatest
potential for visual impact. The staff feels that the
architectural changes to the residences will not be negative
and that since carports are not proposed for the Hallam
Street parking lot there will be no negative visual impact
created by this development.
Landscaping- This proposal will not effect existing
vegetation, although it is possible that plant material may
be damaged during construction. The applicant also proposes
to construct a carport on the east property line which will
require variance in the side yard setback. Staff suggests
that the applicant provide the Engineering Department with
drawings of this proposal, including topography, to
determine if the right-of-way is negatively effected.
FAR- Even with full buildout of this proposal the
development would be under allowable FAR. Under Plan C the
floor area (including basements) would increase from 63,360
to 71,280, a 12.5% increase. This seems like a significant
increase, however, it is still considerably below the FAR
of 1:1 allowed in the R-MF zone.
Density- The applicant is proposing no expansion in unit
count, so there is no effect on the development's density.
Open Space- In staff's opinion the applicant's proposal does
not significantly reduce the development's open space.
Transportation- This proposal will not create additional
automobile trips.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the PUD Amendment
for the Aspen Villas with the following conditions:
o any landscape material destroyed during construction
will be replaced with comparable or better material.
o the applicant provide t e Engin ering epartmept with
cons ction d wing of/ e carp rt, r t ining fall and
berm so th Engi ee 'ng ep rt ent can determine
that no impacts t r-o-w ill be creat
o Prior to the issuance of a building permit the
2
applicant shall, to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department, submit a Final Plat which
conforms to the requirements of the Municipal Code.
3
Page Two
To avoid the case by case, piecemeal approach that you are familiar
with on the additions to the Aspen Club condos P.U.D. , we are re-
questing to have the full buildout ( Plan C) for all units approved.
In this fashion, the City can look at the impact of the maximum potential
at buildout at once, and individual owners (most of whom are local
employees) won't have to make individual applications to the City
at a cost of $1570 each to add 140 square feet to their living room.
Carports: In the parking lot off the 8th street loop there is an ideal
location for providing covered parking for approximately 18 cars.
On either side of the entrance off of 8th street is a berm approximately
4' high that now shields the parking lot from the street. The berm
is entirely in the public Right -of -Way but has been landscaped, sprinklered,
and maintained by the Villas for 16 years. We propose to construct
a 4 to 5 foot retaining wall along the east property line between the
existing pavement and the berm. Approximately 2 to 3 feet above
the retaining wall and supported on columns, a shed roof will extend
20 feet to the west and cover 6 cars on the south and 12 cars on
the north of the entry. The berm will be slightly recontoured to
rest against the retaining wall and additional landscaping provided
to screen the carport roof.
This approach will require a variance in the side yard setback to
allow construction of the east wall of the carports on the property
line which can be granted as part of the P.U.D. amendment. In
reality, the perceived side yard along 8th street (which is 35 feet
deep at its minimum) will be essentially unchanged.
VISUAL IMPACTS: The area of main concern is the view of the Villas
from State Highway 82. Currently the complex looks like a group
of very uniform and rather boring structures that look vaguely
threatening with their pill -box gun slot balconies perched on the
edge of the Castle Creek bluff. The homeowners wish to update
the look of the complex with the plan A up grade and add visual
interest and variety by providing standards for Plans B and C. The
visual impact on the Castel Creek Bluff is already there. We feel
these alterations and small additions will provide a more positive image
of the Villas as one enters Aspen.
Carports: The area where these would be visible is the one block
segment of 8th street that connects the west ends of Main and Bleeker
Streets. All one would see is the fascia of the shed roof 2 to 3 feet
above the berm and screened by mature landscaping.
F. A.R.: Not counting the land owned by the Association of the steep
slope and in the valley floor of Castle Creek, the flat area above
totals 2.3 acres or 100,188 square feet. Counting basements at 1000,
the total existing floor area is 63,360 square feet. The full Plan
C addition adds 80 square feet upstairs (fully enclosing both balconies)
and 140 square feet downstairs for a total of 220 square feet. If
all 36 townhouses opted for Plan C, it would add 7920 square feet
for a total of 71,280 square feet, well below the 1 : 1 allowed on a
100,188 square foot RMF lot.
Carports: Total square footage of covered parking is 3360 square
feet. Even if parking is counted in F.A.R. , it will not exceed what
is allowable.
' r 4 � TN t
ql,a.
�J
�41
qoc'e 'Jorro \/ILLA or-
Ck*e U AOLiffS
ckcwn by -d>,\./N �O Lr-59
checWd
rwised
IC,Ozia
30394-4,si76
Qw
n
0
n�
am(mr)
achk)d
9946 ga
3039Z-4-'D6
IL
C,
\A E:- V
M1Noe -c"w6l gvs MAjoe GwAt ie, d. m" " a" C444A,
OP1" 'A' ONT1oN G 1 G rgoH `b 1
ouN 1l+�ciG G�oSb�
12'x 4 •
�' .
—
et
91'0_4 _ Cca +nri �w
�J�►IpW/4r��
tot4EL oPIENri� --
�
--
pr•tML ru
s � f�1F...2AL Nth
I RMWt 'Ta al t VeA\V IWm* ACE 2 JCCrP6dei9:4 W,
6WMVO� A VARY GlY OF F4%*OLF-
roe 'Tl'&V1UA OF AworJ TOwt.; )ia1SGs, ANO ZA a4
OPVWr4 MU. M P FPEb'!91T aJ Exaa TmA Wm6f.
REi Li1►id oN o W"'** UXFE+I!v-14Ct + WO&Vr, A&
tVE•L,L aK L4;.&,no►J \VmR11N A 41115TU of L1Nr%,, 6gSn1 4
-2"K, iSAk;aF. w ^E4 OJItAIidGS,L�TG. Ti�EXEF4(!�.
ALA- Pwa-rn" V AL 34 UNr}6, CrWMor we. wfLogEO
AT T.K L-W" of PC446 J. -r46 'M1OOC LE+✓E+•S,
a'F MOAAZAIIa4 S A4C AS FoLI.o.VG:
-- 0-4 t4 A: (mItv4. L4 v 4e OOA0 rbCTI,0,4 of Daua+v
rAUtu ,W bo'TI: LE-vELS 212' A4o Wav,oE 14sv4-Mgi,
POE PA -'446 -lb MEB"r cum, ::f A*-"Y : 3 Ffir-
%F C-0 >j ov r., Fi. a 41 l kA42e A-r !E�Fs.����t� �
61-0-4. �i .ASS O4pbz S, -wP FILI, N KF1'WI4 CQ:..
: -41 -t"!M94?41): eAr1;al-.cr,0-18 ekrr Fµuo1e
A4*ow+.-nY 0 L:ss2e *A--1a
61fics' Loki (Piuw,1N►1VyJ,IZT) A55!?Hbtlj/, f•t Er!
LID-doOl C, t Lf� \Vrn+6leEwi�Lt`.E (yS:iJ%
ANO Noy GLO%-r WM4. 094 OOX 1 OfctCS OIJ ,T-Q
SIL & rUy M '496&4 A*PjL 1i' AL 4., "-r , oe L of r OVEAI.
L,Lviw6� L1L:i BGGZG IMy °.�E E:x'TE1iEL� OLJf�O�'fo•Ti.g
owe. OW t NJ ki.1'Ti 61 P.ta + :1v.JSi• vJS NG10�/ W le r►u4aj
. vt J �' Cw-J-0d): D.ar-+a 4' •z., ear c izsw
0,4 X RCS 1=uw- ML.'TN OF LM► & 9mm PEGG
A-0 A */lUfl! 606J F XbC AZ4 95 k'r rt&fTU
awa oH. IF, qN -vN" +nssl 6 IV grwl"
AW Ho" of -rL.e: -r1La,,d JLifr -,it o♦Xr.•L1Id&
TnG 6-Ctd F:rV 104W, MAJPO N[M/ er w14 e%yza,)
�✓IL_L„ BE C60LIdeW.. ppNE.V LMN61 PxM V a4GL
Ljo -rev or UNIM40
e-✓ G+LAS. New ce 2%)AA *6446 (LAV-t
c I.oT L4" -n.sN 150 Ftai WE 6oUT1+)
�wiba/•
9G►T
' u PPFee LuEI. Fi�.NS
:f'TiOIJ 'A' (miwe) op noN `C� Cru bed I ct%nON � CMEp1UH
iiaw RNUNI.,OnLY
i '-
-- - - --- • �+ Llcv 06cK- I •
i _ _ . I� IZ� L• I
-
!o x Gam• �F�' w�� ... _� --�--�_�
0 .12 • '
Fartsly�E FF9YYc5JG� 11EE a *act
DaL 9410
�i 1 ' 1A91
I I303IM4Sb
C,
PL 4N s