Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19881122 /,,",-- , AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION November 22, 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. 516 East Hyman Commercial GMP Conceptual Submission B. 516 East Hyman Commercial GMP Scoring IV. NEW BUSINESS A. 1001 Ute Avenue Lot SplitjPUD V. ADJOURN MEETING The City Council invites the Planning Commission to a joint meeting at 3: 00 PM in the City Council Chambers to discuss the Aspen Institute Property. a.cov 1u181u • ; s ► � lul TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: 516 East Hyman GMQS Allotment, Special Review and GMQS Exemption (for an employee unit) DATE: November 22, 1988 REQUEST: The applicant is requesting Growth Management approval for 11571 square feet of commercial space; GMQS Exemption for one 400 square foot employee unit; a special review for a waiver of the parking requirement for the employee unit; and a special review for cash in lieu payment for the other 2 parking spaces required for the additional commercial square footage. APPLICANT: SJA Associates APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: Kim Weil, Bill Poss & Associates LOCATION: 516.East Hyman Avenue; Lot 1 Pitkin Center Subdivision (See Attachment 1, Location Map.) ZONING: Commercial Core (CC) DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicants are requesting an additional 1,571 square feet (1,125 sq. ft. of net leasable space) of commercial space to be constructed as a second level to an existing structure. The previous structure was demolished in July of this year and was reconstructed with replacement square footage. The replacement square footage as well as the current proposal were both reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Commission. (We have requested that the applicants bring a model of the proposal to the meeting.)' The following is a breakdown of the square footage of the proposed structure: Replacement sq. ft. 2,533.4 square feet Proposed additional commercial sq. ft. 1,571.0 square feet Proposed employee unit sq. ft. 400.0 square feet Total Building Square Footage: 4,504.4 square feet The Commercial Core allows a 1:1.5 FAR. The site is 3,101 square feet which means the total building size of 4,504.4 is almost exactly what is allowed on the site. The proposed height of the building is 3518" which is 412" under the 40' height limit in the Commercial Core zone district. The proposed open space on site is 15%. This is less than the required 25% in the Commercial Core zone district. However, since a portion of the structure is a replacement structure which only had (30) open space, the applicants are actually increasing the open space on site by 12%. We are not requiring this application to provide the required 250 open space since the new proposal does not increase the degree of non -conformity (less open space) of the previous structure. The proposal is to utilize the basement for storage (retail and residential); the first floor is proposed to be utilized as retail space and the second floor will be office space with the exception of 400 square feet to be used as an employee unit. In addition to the request for commercial square footage, the applicants are requesting an exemption from the Residential Growth Management Quota System in order to construct an on site 400 square foot employee unit (studio). The applicants are also requesting Special Review in order to waive the requirement for the employee unit parking space and in order to be allowed to make a cash in lieu payment for the required associated with the additional commercial space, parking spaces In summary, the application is for the following actions: GMQS Allotment (1571 square feet of commercial space) GMQS Exemption (400 square foot employee unit) Special Review (waiver of employee unit parking space and cash in lieu for commercial parking spaces) REFERRAL COMMENTS: 1. ENGINEERING: Jay Hammond of the Engineering Department made the following comments in his memorandum dated November 8, 1988. (See Attachment 2.) 1. Site Design - The design is generally excellent. However, the proposed bench should be moved onto private property, the bike rack should not interfere with the 8 foot sidewalk and the trees and 'plantings should conform to the CCLC Streetscape Guidelines. 2. Storm Drainage - The dry well design raises the possibility of aggravating groundwater conditions on and off site. 3. Parking/Special Review - The cash in lieu payment is acceptable. Mr. Hammond notes a fractional payment whereas the Planning Office has traditionally rounded off the spaces to the nearest actual number of spaces. Therefore, an addition of 1,125 square feet of net leasable area equals to 2 spaces. (See Section 5-301 (E) . ) 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Cindy Houben, Planning Office RE: 1001 Ute Avenue PUD/Lot Split/8040 Greenline review DATE: November 22, 1988 REQUEST: Approval of a conceptual PUD submission. This application involves a 4 step PUD application. The Planning Commission will be reviewing the first step (conceptual submission) at tonight's meeting. In addition, the application involves a Lot Split application which is reviewed by the City Council at the final step of the PUD review. The Planning Commission is also responsible for the final approval of an 8040 greenline review which is to be acted on at the third step of the review. The following chart will hopefully clarify the review process for this project: Step 1 - Conceptual PUD review by the Planning Commission. Step 2 - Conceptual PUD review by the City Council. Step 3 - Final PUD anmd 8040 Greenline review by the Planning Commission. Step 4 - Final PUD anmd Lot Split review by the City Council. APPLICANT: The applicant for the project is Peter Coventry who has a contract to purchase the property from Aspen Development and Construction Company. LOCATION: 1001 Ute Avenue across Ute Avenue from the 1010 Ute Avenue PUD and bordered on the west by the Aspen Chance PUD. ZONING: The area proposed for development is in the R-15 PUD zone district. A portion of the property is located in the City's Conservation Zone district and the most southerly portion of the parcel is located in the County and is zoned AF-1. SITE DESCRIPTION: The site is an old mine dump area for the Smuggler Durant Mines. In more recent years the northern portion of the site has contained 3 tennis courts adjacent to Ute Avenue. The southern portion of the site is heavily wooded and appears to be the natural, undisturbed terrain of Aspen Mountain, while the mid -portion of the site is piled with mine tailings. DESCIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL: The applicants„wish to create two single family homesites on the 6.73 acre parcel. These homesites are to be sold to individuals who will construct the homes. In addition, the application proposes an open space parcel which would be in the common ownership of the two proposed lots. This parcel would be deed restricted against any further development. The application before the Planning Commission tonight is a conceptual PUD review. The property is zoned R-15 PUD which requires that any development other than a single family residence be reviewed under the PUD provisions of the Land Use Code. The main reason this site was zoned PUD is because of its steep slope considerations. Regrading of the property is required in order to develop the site. In addition, the existing tennis courts located on the northern boundary of the parcel, adjacent to Ute Avenue are proposed to be moved 30' to the west. The relocation of these tennis courts is subject to an agreement with the Gant Condominiums. The Gant has leased the land for the courts for a number of years pursuant to the agreement found as an appendix to the application. The southerly portion of the site is located above the 8040 greenline and the proposed development is within the boundaries of the 8040 greenline review. HISTORY: This site was considered in 1986 for a GMQS allotment. The proposed development of a (4) Lot Subdivision was denied after not meeting the threshold scoring under the Growth Management scoring system. 1. Engineering: In a memorandum dated November 16, 1988, Jim Gibbard of Engineering Department makes the following comments: 1. A general plan should be submitted which shows the building height for any future development and relation to natural features of the site. 2. The applicant should be aware that in the final development plan, the following will need to be submitted: a. A slope analysis which has been prepared by a registered land surveyor. b. A more detailed drainage plan which would show how the 2 or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. 11. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan map is dedicated for public use. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the 1001 Ute Conceptual PUD submission be tabled until more site specific studies are conducted which assure the Planning Commission that the proposed building envelopes are suitable for development relative to the concerns expressed by the Chen and Associates' report. At a minimum, the applicants should be required to create a map which indicates potential areas of geologic concern and how the proposed building envelopes can mitigate the concerns. If however, the Planning Commission feels that these concerns can be addressed at the final PUD submission stage then the following conditions of approval of the conceptual PUD plan are recommended: 1. All site specific studies and plans recommended by the Chen & Associates' report shall be submitted as part of the final PUD submission. 2. The slope analysis shall be prepared by a registered surveyor. 3. The final PUD submission shall indicate how all parking 12 RESPONSE: The proposal provides each lot with access to a public ROW. The application provides sidewalks internal to the project but does not provide sidewalks along the public ROW. The proposed driveway to the building envelope is at a 120 grade. It.is proposed to have a concrete type surface and to be snowmelted for safety reasons (emergency vehicles and general safety conditions). SUMMARY: In summary, the application appears to propose the most suitable level of development given the natural and manmade constraints of the site. The Planning Office feels, however, that a more detailed analysis of the environmental considerations is required at this stage in the review process. The basic site plan and layout of the development is consistent with the surrounding area, although it is difficult to visualize since significant regrading of the site is required. The staff feels it is important to see a schematic drawing of elevations of the site including the proposed homes. We are not asking for a final architectural drawing of the houses, but merely a massing and scaling relative to the site and the adjacent Aspen Chance homes. The Code requires that this and the landscape plan be provided at the final PUD submission stage and upon 8040 greenline review. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW The application does not address the 8040 greenline criteria at this time. This will be reviewed by the Planning Commission at the third step of the review process. The staff, however, has inserted the criteria from this portion of the code in order for the Planning Commission to know what other areas of interest will be addressed later in the application process. In addition the Planning Commission members may be able to provide the applicants with some direction relative to the criteria. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, 11 spaces required for each home are located with theproposed building envelope. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted with the final PUD plan which addresses all exterior spaces, specifically the areas adjacent to and within the proposed building E envelopes. 5. Elevations and schematic drawings of the site as seen from Ute Avenue shall be submitted with the final PUD plan. The intention of this conditoin is to illustrate the proposed regrading and structures relative to the site and adjacent parcels. 6. The final PUD plan shall provide a sidewalk along Utef Avenue. 7. The Planning Commission shall reserve the right to determine how the rights of the structure will be measured until review of the final-TUD submission. 8. The water line shall be installed in accordance with the Aspen Water Main Extention Poicy, ie., 8" or 6" ductile iron pipe. 9. The applicants shall install a fire hydrant between Lots 1 and 2 or at the terminus of the line. ch.1001 13 MEMORANDUM TO: Cindy Houben, Planning Office FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department Date: November 16, 1988 RE: _--1001_Ute_Avenue _PUD/Lot Split Having reviewed the above application and Engineering Department has the following comments site visit, the 1. A general plan should be submitted which shows the build' ng height for any future development and relation to natural features of the site. 2. The applicant should be aware that in the final develo e plan, the following will need to be submitted: Pm nt a. A slope analysis which has been prepared b surveyor. Y a registered land b. A more detailed drainage plan which would show how the historic runoff rate would be maintained. This plan should a ls address the impact to drainage along Ute Avenue by the crossing of the access road to this development. g c• A plan that shows how the apc recommendations by Chen and Associates in l -address the ntheirstudy of this parcel on November 21, 1986. 9eotechnic al jg/1001PUD cc: Jay Hammond Chuck Roth