HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Aspen Meadows.A2792
...-..,
~
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 03i30/92
DATE COMPLETE: _{~I
PARCEL 10 AND CASE NO.
2735-121-25-010 A27-92
STAFF MEMBER: KJ
PROJECT NAME:
Project Address:
Legal Address:
Aspen Meadows Bldq. 7 Insub. SPA Amendment
Aspen Meadows. Buildinq #7
APPLICANT:
Applicant Address:
Aspen Institute
Fred Smith
REPRESENTATIVE: Fred Smith
Representative Address/Phone:
Aspen. CO 81611
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAID: (YES) NO AMOUNT: $200
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
1 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date
PUBLIC HEARING: YES
NO
VESTED RIGHTS:
YES
NO
CC Meeting Date
PUBLIC HEARING: YES
NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES
NO
Planning Director Approval:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: X
paid:~ I
Date:~\ 1'21
---------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
city Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
city Electric
Envir.Hlth.
Aspen Con.S.D.
Mtn Bell
Parks Dept.
Holy Cross
Fire Marshall
Building Inspector
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
School District
Rocky Mtn NatGas
State HwyDept(GW)
State HwyDept(GJ)
Other
DATE REFERRED: INITIALS:
F~NAL ROUTING' ~ ~,,1 31 DATE ROUTED:.3 73;(c;~~~~;~~~~~
1C- City Att . Y Engineer ~zoning ___Env. Health
___ Housing Other:
c~ C0~ etb;CA/'
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
~
~f
t:le'
~~
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Bill Drueding
Kim Johnson
TO:
DATE:
March 31, 1992
RE:
Aspen Institute - Insubstantial SPA Amendment for Minor
Relocation of Lodge Building #7
----------------------------------------------------------------
summary: Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Director
grant Insubstantial Amendment approval for the relocation of Lodge
Building #7 approximately 20' to the east and 10' to the south of
the placement approved in the June 1991 Aspen Meadows Final SPA
Plan. The request is made to Qreate greater landscaping area on
the north side of the structure.
Applioant: Aspen Institute, represented by Fred Smith, Agent for
the Institute
Looation: Building #7 is a proposed structure located on the
eastern edge of the lodge "campus" being improved and expanded by
the Institute. The property owners across the river to the north
of this site were concerned that the approved location of Building
#7 (within 10' of the top of the steep slope) would severely limit
space for landscape plantings to screen the structure to their
satisfaction. The Institute agreed to process an amendment to move
the building slightly to allow for increased landscaping area on
the north side of the building. See map for original approval and
proposed building location, Attachment "A".
staff Comments: Staff met with Mr. Smith and neighbors on the
Institute site to discuss location alternatives. A revised
location was staked and inspected by Kim Johnson and Bill Drueding.
The limiting factor in moving the building to the south is the
~xistence of a City water line and its 20' easement. The proposed
luilding relocation stays at least 3' outside of this easement.
le Planning Director may grant approval to insubstantial PUD
lendments pursuant to Section 24-7-908 A. When considering a
oject, the following criteria shall not be considered
;ubstantial:
A change in use or character
An increase in greater than 3% on the overall coverage of
structures on the land
Any substantial increase in trips generation or demand on
public facilities
/
,/
~
r"\
~
4. Reduction by greater than 3% of approved open space
5. More than 1% reduction in parking
6. A reduction of required pavement widths or r.o.w. for streets
7. Greater than 2% increase of gross leasable floor area
8. Greater than 1% increase of residential density
9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or
representation of the original approval, or which requires
granting further variation from the project's approved
dimensional requirements.
The proposed location meets all of the
insubstantial amendments. No changes in the
will occur, nor will open space be reduced.
landscape area will result from this proposal.
this request is consistent with the SPA Final
above criteria for
building use or size
In fact, increased
Staff believes that
Plan approvals.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the relocation of
Building #7 as indicated on Attachment "A".
I approve the Insubstantial SPA
rel of Building #7 as shown
Amendment for the
on ;Jir3~ "A".
Date
Dia oore,
)
,p.ments:
Map of original and Proposed Location for Building #7
2
.
,~
;,-.....",
March 30. 1992
Ms. Kim Johnson
City of Aspen
Planning Department Staff
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Kim:
On behalf of the Aspen Institute, I am requesting an amendment be
processed relative to the location of Building #7 on the Aspen
Institute's properties at the Aspen Meadows.
Recently, we received a number of comments regarding the proximity of
the approved building location to the edge of the escarpment above the
Roaring Fork River. Many Pitkin Reserve and Red Mountain residents
expressed reservations about the ability of the Institute to adequately
landscape the building on the north side so as to soften and partially
screen the building from the view plane of these residents.
The building was originally located so as to avoid Anderson Park and to
also avoid existing utility easements and utility installations in the
area. Since it appears possible that the building can be shifted
slightly to the south, accommodating additional room at the edge of the
drop-off to the river, we are requesting that the City of Aspen
Planning Department approve the relocation of Building #7. as depicted
on Exhibit A.
We believe that this amendment is insubstantial in nature. is in
keeping with the intent of the original approval and does. in fact.
provide for additional areas on the north side of the building for
enhanced landscaping opportunities.
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter.
Aspen Institute