Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19880906 . AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 6, 1988 - Tuesday 4:30 P.M. Old City Council Chambers 2nd Floor City Hall REGULAR MEETING I. COMMENTS Commissioners Planning Staff II. MINUTES III. PUBLIC HEARING A. Hamwi Subdivision/PUD IV. RESOLUTION A. Brand Building - Special Trash Improvement District V. NEW BUSINESS A. pitkin Reserve PUD Amendment B. Dehring Stream Margin Review VI. ADJOURN MEETING .... MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Houben, Planner RE: Hamwi Subdivision DATE: September 6, 1988 On July 19, 1988 the Planning Commission reviewed the Hamwi Subdivision application and set the Public Hearing for August 9 1988. The City Council passed an Administrative Delay Resolution on August 81 resulting in the delay of the Hamwi Subdivision. On August 30 the City Council approved Administrative Delay for the Hamwiproject. n exemption from the At the July 19 meeting the Planning Commission reviewed t application and made preliminary comments indicating the approval he of the subdivision request with an option to place an emloyee unit on site. The Planning Commission reviewed the conditionsyee recommended by the Planning Office as listed below. Several modifications to these conditions were made at the have placed the applicants response to these conditmeeting. I each condition. Ions below 1• The applicants shall submit a final landscape plan to t he Planning Office no later than August 2nd in order for the Planning Office to review the plan prir to Public Hearing before the Planning Commiss on.the August 9th RESPONSE: The applicants have submitted a final landsca in as .was requested. The landscaping lan provid p g plan deciduous blooming species as wellascottonwoodes a variety of s on blue spruce. This plan will be available forreve 8 foot Planning iew Commission meeting, at the 2• The applicants shall submit a final plat and assoc' final plat documents pursuant to the Co rated e These documents should include drawings and glan requirements which clarifies the optional employee unit situation, g which RESPONSE: This is to be submitted prior to the Cit Coun review of Final Plat. Y cil 3. The applicants shall eliminate the patios from within side yard setback by either moving the buildingto the or making the patio areas smaller. the north RESPONSE: The applicants were to discuss this with Bill Dreuding, Zoning Officer prior to tonights meeting. At the time this memo was written this still had not been accomplished. 4. The applicants shall submit a letter to the Planning Office from the Water Department noting whether the water line connection between Neale Street and King Street is necessary. RESPONSE: Larry McKenzie of Stan Mathis's office assured the Planning Office that the Water Department will no longer require this connection. No letter has been submitted. However, a representative from the Water Department did call me to confirm that the Water Department had installed the necessary lines when Centennial was constructed. The Planning Office recommends that this condition be eliminated. 5. The applicants shall supply a general utility easement pursuant to the Engineering Department memo dated June 27, 1988. RESPONSE: The applicants have stated that they will supply whatever easement is necessary. 6. The applicants shall be subject to all environmental health air pollution/fireplace regulations in place at the time a building permit is requested and to all conditions as listed by Lee Cassin in her memorandum dated May 11, 1988. RESPONSE: This shall become a condition of Final Plat submission. 7. The employee unit shall be restricted to the middle income guidelines prior to recordation of the final plat. RESPONSE: The subdivision improvements agreement shall reflect this restriction. 8.. The applicant shall be required to vacate the prior approval pursuant to section 7-1007 c ( ) prior to the recordation of the plat for this project. Other discussions at that meeting revolved around the ability for the applicant to place more employee units on site. The Planning Commission directed the Planning Office to speak with the Housing Authority about the possibility of the Housing Authority helping build on site employee units in some of these projects and/or i helping defray the cost of the fees involved n developing a unit (water tap fees, impact fees etc.). At the last meeting on August 8 these issues were discussed with the applicant, Jim Adamski and the Planning Commission. RECONIlKENDATION: Approval of the request for exemption from mandatory PUD, approve the request for exemption from GMP for optional employee unit and a the rti preliminary submittal for the Hmwi h Subd ivies ion on as the conditions as listed. with the (Please refer to the July 19, 1988 memorandum from the Planning g 1. Prior to review by the City Council the applicants shall submit a Final Plat and associated Final Plat documents pursuant to the Code requirements. These documents should include drawings and language which clarifies the optional employee unit situation. 2. The applicants shall eliminate the patios from within the side yard setback by either moving the building to the north or making.the patio areas smaller. 3. The applicants shall supply a general utility easement pursuant to the Engineering Department memo dated June 27, 1988. 4. The applicants shall be subject to all environmental health air pollution/fireplace regulations in place at the time a building permit is requested and to all conditions as listed by Lee Cassin in her memorandum dated May 11, 1988. 5. The employee unit shall be restricted to the middle income guidelines as part of the Final Plat recorded documents. 6. The applicant shall be required to vacate the prior approval pursuant to section 7-1007 (c) prior to the recordation of the Final Plat for this approval. ch.hamwipc2 3 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 131000+ square foot lot and reconstruct 3 new townhouse structures and an optional employee unit. The 3 free market units are proposed to be approximately 21950 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 development 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 2,980 sq. ft. one (1) bedroom employee unit of 11660 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 andnew 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 t Engineering Department made the following comments: he 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 611 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 supports.' a seven and a half foot general utility easement all around the lot line. 4. For subdivision exemptionapproval, the applicant will i be required to submit a plat n accordance with Section 20- 15. If platting is required for other purposes prior to construction, the certificate of occupancy should be conditional on recording an amended plat reflecting as -built conditions. 2 2. FIRE MARSHAL: The Fire Marshal noted in a memo dated May 101 1988 that the site is within a four minute response time and that adequate water is available to service the area. 3. HOUSING AUTHORITY: In a memorandum dated June 22, 1988 Jim Adamski of the Housing Authority notes that the proposal does not require that employee housing be provided and that he encourages the applicant to provide the deed restricted housing. This unit should be restricted to the middle income guidelines. 4. WATER DEPARTMENT: In a memo dated May 18, 1988 Jim Markalunas of the Water Department notes that the proposal can be served by the Water Department. 5. Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: In a memo dated June 30, 1988 Heiko Kuhn of the ACSD states that the project can be served with the existing facilities. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: In a memo dated May 11, 1988 Lee Cassin of the Environmental Health Dept. notes the following: 1. The Environmental Health Department assumes that the proposal will be served by City Water and sewer. 2. There is no statement as to how many fireplaces and stoves are planned. The entire project .is allowed one fireplace (which will have to contain gas logs if pending legislation passes on second reading) and one certified stove (or a second fireplace containing gas logs if pending legislation passes.) Unlimited numbers of natural gas fireplace appliances are allowed. Each of these devices requires a permit from the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department. 3. A fugitive dust plan must be submitted to this office to ensure that dust is controlled during demolition and construction. Prior to demolition, the existing building should be tested to determine whether asbestos is present. If any is found, it must be disposed of in an approved manner. 4. The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off -site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy metals being present in the soil. 5. Since this project is located within the Smuggler Mountain Hazardous Waste Site, the applicant is urged to 3 contact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA contact person is Marilyn Null at 293-1698 (Denver). The EPA requires information on any building project within the hazardous waste boundaries. 6. Construction activities should be limited to the hours of 7 am until 10 pm. STAFF COMMENTS: 1. This application was made pursuant to the old code. The proposal to replace three existing units is exempt from the Growth Management system. In addition, the applicant is requesting exemption from Growth Management in order to build a deed restricted employee unit. The applicant is also requesting exemption from the mandatory PUD provisions of the Code. 2. The three existing units were verified in the process of reviewing the previous approvals for this property. 3. The application requests exemption from mandatory PUD (section 24-8.13). The Planning and Zoning Commission has the ability to exempt an application from mandatory PUD if you make the'determination that the proposal meets the objectives of the PUD regulations and therefore is not required to go through the entire PUD development review. The mandatory PUD development criteria and the applicants response to those criteria are follows: as 1. Criterion. Whether there exists sufficient water pressure and. other utilities to service the intended development. Response. In the 1985 Residential GMP process, the Planning Department noted the following: "The Water Department reported that the proposed development can be serviced with no problem due to the extension (looping) of the existing water line in Park Circle Drive which was accomplished b Centennial. The existing eight inch (811) trunk line in Park Circle and sewage treatment plant can service this Project." 2. Criterion. The existence of adequate roads to insure fire protection, snow removal and road maintenance. Response. The project is accessible by Park Circle and Park Avenue; fire protection is adequate by virtue of a fire hydrant approximately fifty feet (501) from the property and response time is under four (4) minutes. 3. Criterion. The suitability of the site for development considering the slope, ground and stability, and the 4 possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. Response. There are no potential environmental problems related with the site. 4. Criterion. The effects of the development of the natural water shed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion and consequent effects on water pollution. Response. The proposed drainage plan is shown on the Site Plan. The development will have minimum impact upon drainage because of the natural terrain of the site. All drainage from pavement of the site will be retained on -site through dry wells. 5. Criterion. The possible effects on air quality in the area and City-wide. Response. The Applicant acknowledges that the Code allows a maximum of one (1) woodburning fireplace and one (1) woodburning stove for the proposed structure. 6. Criterion. The design and location of any proposed structure, roads, driveways or trils and their compatibility with the terrain, which is basically flat. Some vegetation is being relocated on -site. Response. The proposed structure is compatible with the terrain, which is basically flat. Some vegetation is being relocated on -site. 7. Criterion. Whether proposed grading will result in the least disturbance to the terrain and other natural land features. Response. Proposed excavation and grading are designed to have minimum effect upon the naturally flat terrain. (See Grading and Excavation Plan.) 8. Criterion. The placement and clustering of structures and reduction of building height and scale to increase open space and preserve natural features of the terrain. Response. The proposed structure is placed away from existing structures, and is within the available height and FAR restrictions. In summary the Planning Office does not object to the waiver of the mandatory PUD procedures for the proposal. The applicants have adequately addressed the criteria listed above. Given the form of the development (multi -family) the applicants have addressed the clustering aspects of the intention of the PUD 5 regulations. In regard to the design aspects of the structure the applicants propose a three story building with lap wood siding and pitched roof lines (see attached design). The applicants did not provide us with a copy of the elevation and design of the structure if the employee unit is not to be included. The Planning Office assumption is that the structure will look basically the same with the smaller inside (employee unit) taken out. The proposed setbacks for the two optional designs are as follows: PROPOSED: REQUIRED: 4 UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Front yard - 14' 10, Rear yard - 11' 10, Side yard - 10, 51 Side yard - 10, 51 PROPOSED: REQUIRED: 3 UNIT DEVELOPMENT: Front yard - 22.5' 10' Rear yard - 10.5' 10, Side (north) - 30' Side (south) - 10.5' In both cases the patios for the structures encroach into the north side yard setback. The Planning Office recommendation is to either cut down the size of these patios or move the buildings further to the south side of the lot. No request for a variation of the setback was requested in the application. The application states that a gravel sidewalk will be provided by the applicant until such time the City Engineering Department determines the exact location of the road alignment and R.O.W. along the property lines. At such time this is determined the applicants will construct a sidewalk meeting code requirements. The maximum height in the RMF zone district is 25 feet (with allowance for 5 additional feet to the peak of the roof). The proposed elevations illustrate a maximum height of 30 feet to the top of the roof line from existing grade. This meets the code requirements. The individuals who will be most affected by the project are those living in the multi -family structures to the north and northeast. These individuals will lose a great deal of their existing views towards the south and west due to the height and location of the proposal. Theonly way to mitigate the impact is to require that the applicants build a single story structure. This design however would require the units be totally reconfigured on the parcel and that the applicants resubmit a plan. As you can tell from the prior approval, the new proposal 0 reduces the overall buildout on the site and leaves a greater buffer at the intersection of Park Avenue and Park Circle. The staff feels that the current proposal is a much less intensive site design than what is currently approved and will have less impact on the neighborhood. The access to the site is proposed off of Park Circle. Each unit will contain a 2 car garage and one additional space per unit is supplied in the northwest corner of the lot. This meets the requirements of the code with regard to parking. The proposal is to provide limited landscaping around the buildings. The exact size and type of trees has not been submitted by the applicant at this time. The Planning Office recommends that the corner of the property (at the intersection of the two streets) have the most concentrated area of landscaping since it will be the most visible from a public perspective. We also recommend that the applicants supply the Planning Office with a more detailed landscape plan to be reviewed by the Planning Commission on the 9th of August. At that time a final recommendation from the Planning Commission can be sent to the City Council. 4. The applicant is requesting exemption from the Growth Management competition pursuant to section 24-11.2. The proposed employee unit is a two bedroom 11600 square feet unit. The Planning Office and Housing Authority recognize the need in the community for additional employee housing and strongly encourage the Planning Commission to approve this exemption request for a deed restricted unit on site. 5. The request for the three units is consistent with the area and bulk requirements for the RMF zone district. 6. The 1973 Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan designates this area as a multi -family area which is consistent with the proposed use. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office advises the Planning Commission to withhold a final approval of the application until August 9, 1988 after the Public Hearing on the application has been officially held. The Planning Office recommends that at that time, the Planning Commission approve the request for exemption from mandatory PUD, approve the request for exemption from Growth Management for the optional employee unit and approve the application as the preliminary submittal for the Hamwi subdivision with the following conditions: 1. The applicants submit a final landscape plan to the Planning Office no later than August 2nd in order for the Planning Office to review the plan Public Hearing before the Planning prior to the August 9th g Commission. 2. The applicants shall submit a final plat and associated final plat documents pursuant to the Code requirements. These documents should include drawings and language which clarifies the optional employee unit situation. 3. The applicants shall eliminate the patios from within the side yard setback by either moving the building to the north or making the patio areas smaller. 4. The applicants shall submit a letter to the Planning Office from the Water Department noting whether the water line connection between Neale Street and King Street is necessary. 5. The applicants shall supply a general utility easement pursuant to the Engineering Department memo dated June 27, 1988. 6. The applicants shall be subject to all environmental health air pollution/ fireplace regulations in place at the time a building permit is requested and to all conditions as listed by Lee Cassin in her memorandum dated May 11 1988. 7. The employee unit shall be restricted to the midd income guidelines prior to recordation of the final plat. le 8. The applicant shall be required to vacate the prior approval pursuant to section 7-1007 (c). ch.hamwi -- RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CREATION OF A SPECIAL TRASH IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEY BETWEEN HOPKINS STREET AND HYMAN STREET FOR BLOCK 88 Resolution No. PZ-88- WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") has reviewed and approved the Conditional Use application submitted by Harley Baldwin for the Brand Building*on August 2, 1988; and WHEREAS, at that meeting the Commission recognized a need expressed by the City Engineering Department to keep trash dumpsters outside of the public right-of-way (alley), however, the Commission also recognized the need to maintain historic structures which are typically built from setback line to setback line thereby allowing no room for trash dumpsters'; and WHEREAS, the Commission voiced general concerns regarding historic preservation and safety issues related to encroachments into the public right-of-way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council explore the creation of a Trash Improvements District for Block 88 in the alley between Hopkins and Hyman Street. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on Tuesday, September 6, 1988. Resolution No. PZ-88- Page 2 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By C. Welton Anderson, Chairman ATTEST: Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk reso.brand MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: Third Amendment to the Pitkin Reserve PUD DATE: September 6, 1988 REQUEST: Approval of 3 PUD Amendments for the Pitkin Reserve. APPLICANT: Michael Lipkin. LOCATION: The location of the Pitkin Reserve Subdivision is off Willoughby Way, north of the Roaring Fork River across from the Aspen Institute. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: This application to amend the Pitkin Reserve PUD contains 3 separate amendment requests. These are summarized as follows: 1. HOW TO CALCULATE FAR: The applicant requests that an unresolved question of how to calculate FAR in the PUD be reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council. It was the applicant's understanding that due to the substantial regrading of the site, the FAR calculations for this project would be measured from finished grade rather than natural grade. This issue has been an on going question in the Building Department and Planning Office, therefore, the applicant has requested to amend the PUD agreement in order to clarify the situation. 2. TOTAL FAR: The Applicant and the Planning Office have also been reviewing the issue of how to calculate total FAR on the site. The applicant states that the FAR for the entire PUD has been incorrectly calculated. : The applicant contends that there is actually additional FAR available for the project. The recorded documents indicate a specific amount of FAR was allotted to the project which the applicant is requesting to amend upwards. 3. GATEHOUSE: The applicant has been using the gatehouse as an office for his architectural staff. The Building Department has red tagged the gatehouse because the use as an office is not allowed in the zone district and because the unit was approved as an employee unit, deed restricted to an employee in the middle income category. The applicant is requesting that the existing use be allowed to be continued until the last house in the project is completed. HISTORY: The Pitkin Reserve went through the PUD review process in 1982 and 1983 and has come in for several amendments regarding the PUD agreement. The latest PUD amendment was approved and recorded in 1984. STAFF COMMENT: The Pitkin Reserve PUD project is a unique project in that substantial regrading of the site has taken place. The intent of the development was to build the homes into the recontoured hillside with the roof lines being below Willoughby Way. In 1987, the applicant requested a clarification of whether height should be measured from existing or finished grade. At that time, the P&Z and staff agreed that building heights would be measured from finished grade in order to accomplish the intent of the PUD. Unfortunately, we did not think to address FAR calculations at the same time, necessitating this further review. The following staff comments will address each of the three proposed amendments separately. 1. HOW TO CALCULATE FAR: The project FAR has been calculated under the old FAR methodology since the project began under those regulations. The new FAR methodology allows the applicant to delete all areas which are subgrade from the FAR calculations (as measured from natural grade). The old methodology only allows for those stories which are 100% subgrade to be deleted from the FAR calculations. Therefore, under the new regulations additional square footage could be added to the project. The applicant is requesting that the new regulations be applied to the project and to additionally allow the subgrade areas to be calculated from finished grade rather than natural grade. The applicant feels that the determination to allow FAR to be calculated from finished grade rather than natural grade makes sense on the site due to the extensive regrading and necessary construction techniques. (see attached drawings) The below grade area is not visible and in that sense does not increase the project bulk. However, the massing of the project may increase due to the configuration of the grading which could take place in order to allow more area which does not count as FAR. In addition, if the proposed FAR methodology is approved, approximately 7,463 sq. ft. will be divided up among the 6 homesites for additional FAR. As noted earlier in this memorandum, this issue has been discussed for several years among the applicant, the Planning Office and the Building Department. The unique conditions in this case are that the approval bodies have allowed the applicant to significantly regrade the site and measure height from finished grade. The question before the Planning Commission is whether or not these circumstances warrant allowing the applicant to measure the FAR on the site using the new code and measuring from 2 finished grade rather than natural grade. The application states that approximately 1/3 of each of the existing three houses are below finished grade (the 3 existing houses are all 7,463 sq. ft in size. The request is to allow that square footage to be divided up among the 6 lots in the PUD. This means, to date there will be approximately 7,463 square feet of -additional FAR to be divided among the 6 lots. This is greater than 1,200 additional square feet per house. If the FAR is interpreted as proposed, each house will be allowed to be almost 81600 square feet. (The Subdivision Improvements agreement allows each house to have an average of 61700 square feet.) In reviewing the original files on the PUD, the major concern from the Planning Commission and Council was that the bulk of the homes be keep as unobtrusive as possible from the public ROW (Rio Grande Trail).*The applicant agreed with the concept and proposed to build the homes into the hillside thereby eliminating a significant amount of the perceived bulk. The applicant is now requesting to be allowed to be given credit (FAR) for the portions of the homes which are being hidden from view. The Planning Office contends that this design was part of the approval and intended all along. To now allow the applicant to get credit for what was presented as a perceived reduction in FAR seems inconsistent with the original approvals since the additional 7,463 square feet would be allowed above grade and would definitely add to the bulk as perceived from the Rio Grand Trail. Additionally, it should be noted that the project was developed pursuant to specific design criteria and limitations (The Land Use Code Regulations in effect at that time) and was approved on that basis. As a general rule, once a PUD is approved, it is governed by the rules in effect at the time of its approval, to in that the representations about architecture, bulk and design are adhered to. Therefore the Planning Office is. opposed to the request to allow the FAR to be calculated from finished grade using the new code. 2. TOTAL FAR: The applicant has requested to amend the PUD agreement to allow additional FAR on the total site. The applicant's calculations are attached. The latest PUD agreement recorded in 1984 states that the total allowed FAR for the project is 40,350 square feet; 6725 square feet per residence. The applicant contends that there was a mistake in the FAR calculations and that the correct figure for the development is 45,850 sq. ft. Attached is a copy of the applicant's FAR calculations. The applicant has developed this calculation by using 7 lots rather than 6 lots. Because of the way FAR is calculated in a PUD, (a chart illustrating the slide scale approach will be provided at the meeting) by using 7 instead of 6 lots, the total FAR permitted on the. site can be increased. However, in actuality 3 the 7th lot is limited by the prior approval to a 1000 square foot gatehouse for use as employee housing and should not provide the basis for increasing the project's overall FAR by more than the 1000 sq. ft. The Planning Office feels that the original approvals were based on the reliance that the project build out was to be no more than 40,350 square feet. The application states that the applicant has already built 22,389 sq. ft. plus 7,463 presently under construction for a total of 29,852 sq. ft. which has already been allocated. According to the recorded figures, there is approximately 10,498 square feet of additional square footage to be allotted between the two houses which have not been built. By accepting the applicant's calculations there would be approximately 14,926 sq. ft to be used between the two remaining lots. Section 24-8.26(b) regarding PUD amendments states that "such amendments shall be made only if they are shown to be required by changes in conditions that have occurred since the final plan was approved or by changes in community policy." The Planning Office recommendation is that the applicants are bound by the past approvals and that there is no justification for the additional square footage. 40,350 square feet was satisfactory at the time of the approvals and in light of the community concern over excessive bulk, the additional square footage is not in the best interest of the community. The Planning Office therefore recommends that the applicants be required to go by the existing approval of 40,350 square feet for the total buildout of the project. 3. GATEHOUSE: The applicant requests that the gatehouse be allowed to be used as a project office until April of 1990. The applicant feels that there is less traffic generation to and from the site since the office is on site. In addition the applicant feels that the owners in the project can more adequately be served by having an on site project office. See attached letter from applicant dated August 8, 1988. The gatehouse was approved as an employee dwelling to be used to house an on site caretaker of the property. The approval was based on the housing authority rent and occupancy guidelines. The unit was recently red tagged by the zoning official for a violation of the agreement. The charge was that the unit was being used as an architectural office housing six employees. The Planning Office recognizes the need for an on site project manager but also feels that the community had reliance from the applicant that the unit was to house a middle income employee who was a caretaker of the project. It seems reasonable that a project manager, during construction, could be this person if the project manager -meets the occupancy guidelines of the Housing 4 Authority. However, it's explicitly contrary to the approval and the home occupation rules to allow the applicant to operate an office, with a staff employed by other projects, in the gatehouse: Therefore the Planning Office recommends that 1 (one) project manager be allowed to occupy the gatehouse until completion of the last house in the project and that the office use be terminated immediately. RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the request for the PUD amendments to measure FAR calculation using the new code and calculating from finished grade and to increase the overall project FAR. The gatehouse may be used by a project manager as a residence and project office until the last house is completed, at which time it shall be occupied by a caretaker who meets Housing Authority guidelines, as was previously agreed to. CH.PITRES 61 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: Dehring Stream Margin Review DATE: September 6, 1988 REQUEST: Approval of a Stream Margin Review in order to construct a single family residence which will replace the existing duplex currently located on the property. APPLICANT: Roger Dehring LOCATION: 1035 East Hopkins, Lots 3 and 4, Block 5 of the Riverside Drive Addition. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Engineering: In a memorandum dated August 25, 1988 Jim Gibbard of the Engineering Department notes the following: 1. The Plat must show the High Water Line (drawn and labeled) . 2. The applicant must submit. a description of the construction procedures..to be used to the Engineering Department. STAFF COMMENTS: Section 7-504 of the Land Use Code, "Criteria for Stream Margin Review", and the applicant's response are listed below: 1. CRITERIA: It can be demonstrated that the proposed development will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an elevation certificate prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State of Colorado. RESPONSE: The applicants have attached a letter from Mclaughlin Engineers stating that the development will not increase the base flood elevation. 2. CRITERIA: 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: No trails are proposed by the Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails element of the Comprehensive Plan for the west side of the river. A trail is proposed for the east side of the river. 3. CRITERIA: The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. RESPONSE: The applicants are not proposing removal of any vegetation, therefore the proposal is generally consistent with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. 4.CRITERIA: No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank. RESPONSE: No changes in slope and grade are proposed which will create pollution or produce erosion in the river. 5. CRITERIA: 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 application does not propose interference with the natural changes of the river. The Engineering Department recommends however that the applicant submit a construction plan showing that the construction techniques for the development will not affect the river with regard to pollution or erosion. 6. CRITERIA: 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. 7. CRITERIA: 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. 8. CRITERIA: Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain. RESPONSE: No relocation of the water course is proposed, and no work is proposed in the 100 year floodplain. In summary, the application complies with the requirements of the Stream Margin Review criteria. In addition to the above criteria, Staff notes that the proposed building envelope does not comply with the setback requirements of the zone district. A 6,300 square foot lot in the RMF zone k district requires a total of 16.5 feet of total side yard setback with a minimum setback of 5 feet. The plat that was submitted indicates only 5 feet on both sides. This building envelope must be modified to meet the setback requirements of the zone district. We also note that on August 30, City Council granted an exemption from the administrative delay on demolition to the owners of the existing duplex. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends approval of the Dehring Stream Margin Review with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall resubmit a plat which includes the following information and correction: a. The Plat shall include and label the High Water Line. b. The proposed building envelope shall be redrawn to indicate the appropriate setbacks in the RMF zone district. 2. The applicant shall submit a description of the construction procedures for the project in order for the EngineeringDepartment to determine if any pollution or erosion will be caused which would affect the Roaring Fork River. ch.dehring 3