Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19880719 ......., I AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION July 19, 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. PUBLIC HEARING A. Hamwi GMP/PUD Exemption & Subdivision IV. NEW BUSINESS A. 727 E. Hopkins Condominiumization B. Cosniac Stream Margin Review V. ADJOURN MEETING - MEMORANDUM - - - - TO:__ -Aspen-Planning and Zoning -Commission - - - FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: Hamwi Subdivision - DATE: July 19, 1988 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT: Paul Hamwi REQUEST: Subdivision and PUD (replacement of existing units) and a request for exemption from Growth management for an employee unit. LOCATION: Lot 4, Sunny Park Subdivision, address 170 N. Park Avenue, located at the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle. ZONING: RMF PUD HISTORY: This parcel received a Growth management approval in 1985 for 11 units (4 new free market, 3 replacement free market and 4 employee units). This approval expires on September 1, 1988. The applicant has applied for an extension of this approval while he is in this review process. A copy of the approved site design is attached for comparison purposes. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: This application was not given adequate public notice for this meeting. Therefore the Planning Office is requesting that the Planning Commission review the application at this meeting and open the Public Hearing at a special meeting on August 9th in order for adjacent landowners and other concerned citizens to respond. No formal action should be taken by the Planning Commission at tonight's meeting. The applicant proposes to demolish 3 existing units. on the 13,000+ square foot lot and reconstruct 3 new townhouse structures and an optional employee unit. The -3 free market units are proposed to be approximately 2,950 square feet each. The optional employee unit is proposed to be approximately 1,600 square feet. The applicants desire is to construct one employee unit on site, - however he is unsure as to whether or not he can afford to build the employee unit at this time. Therefore, he is requesting an exemption from growth management for the employee unit in order to allow him to construct the unit if it turns out. to be financially feasible. Attached are copies of the design of the _ _ dev�=lopment with and without the employee unit. - SITE -DESCRIPTION: The site - is a relatively flat site which is bordered on two sides- by. public roadways (Park Circle and Park Aveue)-. The parcel is.13,393 square feet. The RMF zone district allows a 1:1 FAR. The proposed square footage and unit size is as follows: three (3) bedroom units ranging between 2,920 and 2,98.0 sq. ft. one (1) bedroom employee unit of 1,660 sq.ft. Total of 15 bedrooms and 10,510 sq. ft. The surrounding land uses are mixed. Directly to the north and east of the site are multi -family structures. To the south and west of the site are multi -family, duplex and single family structures. The Smuggler Mountain area consists of some old and new structures which have traditionally been owned and rented by individuals who live and work in the community. REFERRAL COMMENTS: 1. ENGINEERING: In a memo dated June 27, 1988 Chuck Roth of the Engineering Department made the following comments: 1. This parcel has previously been reviewed for development in 1981, 1982, and 1985. 2. The salient item from previous reviews, in terms of engineering considerations, appears to be the possible need of a water line connection between the 6" line on King Street and the 6:" line on Neale Street. The Water Department should be contacted to determine if this requirement should be carried forward from previous applications. 3. The electric utility serving the project site is Holy Cross. They would like, and the City'Engineering Department, s supports, a seven: and a half foot general utility easement, all around the lot line _ 4. For subdivision exemption approval, the applicant will be required to submit a plat.in accordance with Section 20-- 15`. If platting is required for other purposes prior to construction, the certificate of occupancy should be condtional.on recording an amended plat reflecting as -built conditions. 2 i I I - _ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission_ - FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: 727 East Hopkins/Condominiumization -- DATE: July 19, 1988 APPLICANT: Norm Bacheldor and Ralph Melville. REQUEST: To condominiumize a duplex currently under construction. LOCATION: 727 East Hopkins DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The request is to condominiumize a duplex on the southwest corner of Original and Hopkins. The application was submitted under the old code however requests the advantages of the new code. The applicants request to be given a waiver from the 6 month minimum lease restriction (granted under the new code but not the old code) . In addition, the applicants have proven that the rent for the previous structure was not within the employee guidelines and therefore they should not have to deed restrict the unit for a 5 year period. Thus the applicants are requesting to mix and match the old and new Qodes. Technically the application was submitted under the old code therefore the applicants have requested to be heard by the Planning Commission (the new code takes condominiumizations directly to the City Council). REFERRAL COMMENTS: In -a memo dated May 26, 1988, Elyse Elliott of the Engineering Department made the following comments: 1. The applicant must provide a condominium plat verifying the required number of on -site parking spaces, utility easements, and trash.facility. 2. The project must provide sidewalks in accordance with Resolution #19. All R.O.W. improvements must conform to the streetscape guidelines. 3. The applicant must supply verification that the drainage runoff the site will not increase pursuant to section 20- 17 (f ) of the code. 4. The Engineering Department recommends that the applicants pave the alley way behind the project. 5. The Engineering Department requests that the applicants work with them during the construction phase of the -- _ - _—�developme-nt to coordinate activities in the Public R.O.W. or on site that would impact vehicle and pedestrian traffic. STAFF -COMMENTS: 1. This application was submitted pursuant to section 20-22 of the old code. The following criteria apply: a. CRITERIA: Existing tenants shall be given written notice when their unit is offered for sale, which notice shall specify the sale price. Each tenant shall have a ninety -day nonassignable option to purchase their unit at this preliminary market value. In addition, each tenant shall have a ninety -day exclusive nonassignable right of first refusal to purchase their unit which shall commence when a bona fide offer is made by a third person, and accepted by the owner. In the event that such offer is made while the ninety -day option is still in effect, the tenant may purchase the unit for the amount of the initial sales -price or the amount of the bona fide offer, whichever is less. RESPONSE: The applicants have requested that this be waived because there are no existing tenants. Typically the Planning Commission -has required that the previous tenant of the prior unit be offered first right of refusal. The applicant has not provided this information. b. CRITERIA: All units shall be restricted to six (6) month minimum leases with no more than two (2) shorter tenancies per year, and RESPONSE: The applicant is requesting to waive this restriction. The old code does not allow a waiver of the 6 month minimum lease restriction. The new code does allow a waiver of the restriction in the office zone district provided certain criteria can be met. The application does not address these criteria. Therefore the Planning Office recommends that the 6 month minimum lease restriction be enforced unless the Planning Commission wishes to table the issue to allow the applicants to use the new code requirements in the case of the 6 month restriction. If the Planning Commission agrees with the staff that the application should be reviewed totally under the old code the staff will offer that the applicants can petition the Planning Office to be heard under the new code at the time it goes before the City Council.- C . CRITERIA: The applicant shall demonstrate that approval will not reduce -the supply of low and moderate income housing. Such demonstration shall be made at the time of initial consideration by the Planning. and Zoning Commission for purposes of their recommendation to the City Council. - RESPONSE:` The applicants have verified that the previous unit was rented at a price above the -employee guidelines. The unit was 733-square feet and- was rented for $900.00 per month. This calculates to- one dollar and -twenty cents per square foot which is above the low and moderate employee guideline rates. Thus the application is- not reducing the supply of low and moderate housing in the community_. - RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the condominium request with the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicants shall submit a condominium plat pursuant to the Engineering Department and code requirements. 2. The applicant shall provide sidewalks on both adjacent streets . 3. Drainage retention shall be verified by the applicant.- 4- The applicants shall submit a subdivision exception agreement which includes the -following: a) agreement to join any future improvements district if one is formed for their area. b) a six month minimum lease restriction with no more than two shorter tenancies per year. 5. The applicants shall verify that the previous tenant was offered first right of refusal for the new units. ch.727 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission. FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: 727 East Hopkins/Condominiumization DATE: July 19, 1988 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- APPLICANT: Norm Bacheldor and Ralph Melville. REQUEST: To condominiumize a duplex currently under construction. LOCATION: 727 East Hopkins DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The request is to condominiumize a duplex on the southwest corner of 'Original and Hopkins. The application was submitted under the old code however requests the advantages of the new code. The applicants request to be given a waiver from the 6 month minimum lease restriction (granted under the new code but not the old code). In addition, the applicants have proven that the rent for the previous structure was not within the employee guidelines and therefore they should not have to deed restrict the unit for a 5 year period. Thus the applicants are requesting to mix and match the old and new codes. Technically the application was submitted under the old code therefore the applicants have requested to be heard by the Planning Commission (the new code takes condominiumizations directly to the City Council). REFERRAL COMMENTS: In- a memo dated May 26, 1988, Elyse Elliott of the Engineering Department made the following comments: 1. The applicant must provide a condominium plat verifying the required number of on -site parking spaces, utility easements, and trash.facility. 2. The project must provide sidewalks in accordance with Resolution #19. All R.O.W. improvements must conform to the streetscape guidelines. 3. The applicant must supply verification that the drainage runoff the site will not increase pursuant to section 20- 17(f) of the code. 4. The Engineering Department recommends that the applicants pave the alley way behind the project. 5. The Engineering Department requests that the_applicants altered or relocated, that applies to -the developer and his heirs-, successors and assigns that ensures that the _ flood carrying capac-ity on --the —parcel —is not diminished. Response: This -criteria does not apply-. ( a ) Copies are _provided of all necessary federal and state - permits relating to work within the. one hundred (100) year floodplain. - Response: The Planning Office is not aware of any required federal or state permits which are required. for this project. SUMMARY: The increase in square footage is required to be under the FAR regulations for the R-30 PUD Zone District. The new additions must also meet the setback requirements for the R-30 zone district. The rear setback should be carefully checked prior to submittal of building plans. The site plan appears to show 13' from the addition to the property line; 15' feet is required. PLANNING OFFICE RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Lindner Stream Margin Review with the following conditions: (1) Construction procedure shall be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit in order to demonstrate there will be no increase of pollution in the river and no destruction of the river bank caused by this development. (2) The high water line shall.be indicated on the site plan prior to issuance of a building permit. (3) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Zoning Official shall confirm that the R-30 zone district requirements are met with. regard to FAR, height and setbacks. COSNIAC.SM 3