HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19881108
1
.~:\
I . \
tf/}\ 11(--
!
,
AGENDA
===============================================================
ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
November 8, 1988 - Tuesday
4:30 P.M.
Old City Council Chambers
2nd Floor
City Hall
REGULAR MEETING
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
I. COMMENTS
II.
commissioners
Planning Staff
MINUTES 9/,9</11; V-- /0 j.f/ri
~..;.
III. NEW BUSINESS
A. 200 E. Main Street GMQS Exemption
III.
~ Elmor~ Subdivi~~? 04.du(
ADJO~ETING ~ .
a.cov
"
To: MEMORANDUM
Aspen planning and zoning
g Commission
Roxanne Eflin, Planning g Office
200 E. Main St
Section 8-104 (B GMQS Exemption
for Historic Landmark,
Date: November 8, 1988
APPLICANTS REQUEST:
System T• Exemption --___
for the enlargementfrom the Growth Ma
construct a detached Of a Management
housing
historic desi Quota
on a historic 2 des q• ft Office gnated landmark, to
requests special Ignated site. building with
Parking review to a reduction
employee
g requirements for theProject.
applicant
project, ion in the so
APPLICANT: off -street
• The Associates and Wheeler -Carter Richard and Claudette Venture:
LOCATION; Carter Wheeler Square
Of Aspen 200 E. Main Street, Lot
, Colorado (entire Parcel Includes Lots Kwnsite and City
Office Zone; , L, and M)
Designated Main Street
Historic
HISTORY: Landmark Hlstoric Overlay District;
Y: This '
9
designated historic000insq' ft. parcel (Lots recognition
of 1976 by the ( is K' L, and cottages the historic owner at that M) was
occupying Importance time, in
site desi g Lots L and °f the
totally sign for the -proposal M• also two 18901s
Y detached structure favored b�,° t as "Gracy s �� .
the existin rather he HPC calls The
and scale of buildings, e order than an ex for a
the adjacent to best expansion of either of
historic structures.
the integrity
grity
that this OF .PROPOSAL:
designatedproject is The Planning office has
Is
eligible for exemption determined
this determination landmark status. Tfrom GM
are. e important
due to its
1 factors in
• All three
which currently lots are landmark
contain the two designated
historic not just the two
2. To look landmarks (Gracy�s an existin at only allowinexempt-
that)
designg historic landmar -landmark on on the expansion
think tsis not preferable drive applicants of
Project. appropriate to c°onsParcels sucato a
der this. We
exemption for this
Should the this
could be accomplished find as exemption inappro .
the applicant pr s b� GMQS sc
haoring
s submitted
a dual
application
for
appropriate either
Process.
end Process however Staff feels
applicant must result Since to be either method exempt -
applicant is the
housing t reach the competitive
for the exemption achieve the
This is then onde parking, have a for
the
for Y development n acceptable hold for
GM Commercial Space ptable site employee
E QS allotment this application within design, etc.
Year,
scoring method Of
Year. Shouldd uses oche Office Zone
and the proposal .review and a the °Co mis/� of the allowed
approval, public lion prefer the
al will be scheduled fo
notice
REFERgAI, COMMENTS; r the December is required
20th meeting.
1.
Elliott Engineering: In a
4 memo
the following consider dated October
ations are 24 from Elyse
a• Utilities; made,
proximity of the 11 necessary ut
impacted by
project ilitles are
indicated serving it, and will not in close
where the The be greatly
which is utilit applicant
The required b Y bOx area will has not
applicant shall also gineering for their approval.
located,
or Lot al easement adjace provide the re approval.
L. adjacent t required � x 4
4 1
° he alley on either Lot
b• Storm Drain K
1004 theon-site detention
a The application
Permit/ (t (f) . Prior torequirements must
comply . with
drainage he Prior
the issuance* Section
ge of
Plan g Department has t a building
assure that prepared by a o
maintained, the historical qualified approve a
rate of engineer to
runoff is
C. Alley;
Unpaved- alley behind the
11eY to reduce Engineering recommends therO�ect is currentl
(Refer to Section dust and improve applicant pave the
7-1004 (C� (3� (a) (4) . the appearance,
d• Circulation; No
adverse affect is indicated
e• Sidewalks•
at'least 51 in ,Engineering is
righ t_o width and requiring
f -way con all
improvements Sidewalks of
Guidelines, form
raised Thethe Cit r to
the public
Planter musbike rack is a nice s Streetscape
not encroach onto the amenity.
f• Plat; The
Of the C r plat shall be sub right-of-way.
ificate of mitted prior
requirements of the Occupancyto issuance
Engineerin that
g• Trash;
g Department, meets the
(Lot Iq for a dum roj ect does not
pster• not provide space
' the dumpster On -site
2 for this
Marshall
Vandemark
acceptabl
sprinkler
the Final
Y s aL for HPC review. Wayne
stated this minimum -distance variation would e provided the uld be
new structure would contain a
system. The applicant agreed to this condit'
HPC review meeting. ion at
were solicited b t
SUMMARY: The proposal represents a
narrow, challenging site within the Main St design solution for a
District in the Office Zone, Street Historic Overlay
impacts according to the code requirementapplicant has mitigated
s.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recomm
Commission recommend a ends that the Planning
With the following conditions: for the project at 200 East Main
1• Engineering: The following re
Engineering Department shall be accom ligquirements by the
a building permit is granted: p hed prior to when
a• Submit drawin
indicating where thegutilitthbo Engineering Department
Y x will be located
b• Provide the required 4' x 4'
adjacent to the alley on either Lot K o destal easement
Lot I,
C. Comply with storm
requirements of Section drainage1004 on -site detention
drainage ( ) (4) (f) • Submit a
g plan for approval b
Department, for
by a Y the Engineering
that the historical rate of runoff d ismaintained
to assure
aintained
d• Pave the alleyto
reduce dust and improve the
appearance (Section 7-1004 (C) (3) (a) (4)
e. Sidewalks must be at least s, improvements to the public right -of -win width and all
City�s Streetscape Guidelines, ay conform to the
between the sidewalk and curb must be i Planting strip
ncluded.
f. The raised planter must be relocated
encroach into the right-of-way on site to not
g• A plat shall be submitted prior to issuanc
Certificate of Occupancy that meets the re e of the
the Engineering Department quirements of
h. Provide the Engineering Department
approval, more information on the , for their
dumpster located to insure it can proposed
site gOf
ar
the
accommodate
generated from both the new structure and Gracgarbage
y's.
i• The contractor must coordinate with
the Engineering
8
Department for excavations, equipment storage and any
activities on the right-of-way.
•
j j Parking: The applicant shall provide a minimum of
four on -site parking spaces, and shall be required to
pay cash -in -lieu for any reduction in commercial
parking by special review. Staff recommends the
residential parking spaces for the two new bedrooms
created in the affordable housing units be waived,
without a cash -in -lieu requirement, finding that the
potential impact of these spaces is considerably less
than that created by the commercial/office space
proposed.
2. Housing: A deed restriction approved by the Housing
Authority be recorded for the on -site studio and one
bedroom employee dwelling units before an issuance of a
building permit for any portion of the development.
Said units shall be restricted to the then current
Employee Housing Guidelines and indexed to the moderate
income category. The affordable housing units shall
only be rented or sold to the building's employees to
reduce parking needs for the site.
The payment -in -lieu for .02 employees shall be made at
the time of issuance of a building permit for any
portion of the proposed development and indexed to the
then current Employee Housing Guidelines Moderate
Income Category.
3. Sanitation: The applicant shall pay plant capacity,
line improvement and connection fees at the time the
tap is made
4. Fire: The applicant shall meet the Fire Marshall's
requirements, prior to a building permit being granted,
regarding the exit passageway being a rated enclosure,
and that the subgrade window dimensions qualify as
rescue windows. The new structure shall contain an
approved sprinkler system due to the close proximity to
the adjacent historic landmark structure. The
applicant shall also address the Fire Marshall's
concerns regarding the window wells being an
obstruction of the exit way, and that the exit spacing,
first floor discharge, meets the requirements. Written
approval of these issues from the Fire Marshall shall
be received in the Building Department prior to a
building permit being granted.
memo.pz.200em
9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office
RE: Gordon Subdivision/PUD and Stream Margin
Review; Callahan PUD Amendments and Lot Line
Adjustment.
DATE: November 8, 1988
REQUEST: Conceptual PUD/Subdivision approval for Lot 2
Gordon Subdivision. of the
There is also an additional request for Stream Margin Review for
the Gordon Subdivision/PUD, however the final approval for this
request will coincide with review of the Final PUD development
application. The application is also requestingine a Adjustment between Lot 9 of the Callahan Subdivision Land ot Lthe
Gordon Parcel. A Lot Line Adjustment application is reviewed b
the City Council and does not require a recommendation by the
Planning Commission. In addition the application is requesting
amendments to the Callahan PUD. g
review this request at the time the of final deeloetpCommission will
the Callahan subdivision is reviewed, pment plan for
APPLICANTS: Elmore/Yow Aspen Ventures (John Elmore and L. Yow
LOCATION: The Callahan Subdivision is located directly off
Highway 82 at the intersection of Crystal River Road the dri
leading to the Aspen Club Parkin Lot ( ve
g
located ' on the banks .of the Roaring Fork RiverGbetw Property is
and the Callahan Subdivision. Property
the river
ZONING: R-15 PUD
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: T]
subdivide Lot 2 of the Gordon
Line for Lot 9 of the Callahan
Roaring Fork River and requires
le applicants are proposing to re -
Subdivision adjust the Boundary
PUD. The Gordon Parcel is on the
a Stream Margin Review.
The proposal amends the existing Callahan PUD in two ways. First
the application proposes to redevelop the access throu h the
Callahan PUD to the Gordon Subdivision/PUD.g
application proposes a Lot Line Adjustment betweenLot91y' the
of Callahan PUD and the Gordon PUD. (Please see attached maps.) the
The proposal amends the existing Gordon PUD by adding an
additional Lot and extending Lot 9 of the Callahan Subdivision
through the Gordon parcel, in essence creating a two Lot division
of the Gordon Parcel. (Please see attached maps.)
Since this application involves combining several review
procedures, the following outlines and attempts to clarify the
role of the Planning Commission in this review:
Step 1 - PLANNING COMMISSION: A review and recommendation
on the Conceptual PUD for the Gordon Subdivision.
Step 2 - CITY COUNCIL: A public hearing to consider the P &
Z's recommendations regarding the Conceptual PUD for the
Gordon Subdivision.
Step 3 - PLANNING COMMISSION: A public hearing review and
recommendation of the Final Plat for the Gordon
Subdivision/PUD and Final decision on the Stream Margin
Review. Recommendation on the Callahan PUD Amendment.
Step 4 - CITY COUNCIL: A public hearing (assuming vested
rights are requested) and Final decision on the Gordon
Pud/Subdivision. Final decision on the Callahan PUD
Amendment and Final decision on the Lot Line Adjustment to
Lot 9 of the Callahan Subdivision.
HISTORY:
The Gordon Parcel has been through four previous planning
reviews. These are outlined as follows:
1. 1983/Lot split creating Lots 1 and 2 of the Gordon
Parcel.
2. 1984/Growth management approval for 3 duplexes on Lot
2 of the Gordon parcel. (Approval expired.)
3. 1985/A Growth Management approval for 9 units on Lot 2
of the Gordon parcel and Lots 4 and 9 of the Callahan
subdivision. (Approval expired.)
4. 1985/An application to create 2 single family lots on
Lot 2 of the Gordon parcel was submitted but was
withdrawn prior to final action by the City Council.
The main controversy regarding the development of the Gordon
parcel (Lot 2) has been access to the parcel. Adjoining
neighbors have contested the various applicants ability to gain
access to the parcel. The existing access easement to the Gordon
parcel is through the Callahan PUD between Lots 7 and 8. This
access has been contested as a result of a discovery that there
is a narrow 7 foot strip of land under separate ownership which
does not allow a continuous access from the Callahan Subdivision
to the Gordon parcel (see Map).
2