HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.su.Cottonwood
,-<",<,,~,:,-"-'
~
e!':"''''''''''''''r.'":."..
1"'"'\
"'"
.~/"
t+-;j.-
$ft\.,
i.':J.
I.,;"i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Planning Staff (HC)
RE: 0ttonw~bdivision - Con,ceptual
DATE: April 21, 1976
This is a request for the "Cottonwood" Subdivision consisting of a
four (4) unit apartment house on .43 acres of land south of Ute
Avenue across from the Gant Condominiums. . The property is zoned
R-6 Mandatory P.U.D.
The Aspen Planning Commission on April 20, 1976, recommended
approval of the conceptual subdivision subject to the conditions of
the Planning Office. Specifically, the Planning Commission agreed
to reduce the parking requirement to four (4) spaces and combine
access for this project and the single family dwelling.
The comments of the Planning Office are as follows:
1. The bu1ilding name is in confl i ct with the existing
Cottonwood Condomi n i ums, and wi,ll be changed.
2. The building is well located on the site nad preserves
the existing stands of cottonwood trees.
3. Access to the single family dwelling to the immediate
east of the site is across th,is site. An access agree-,
ment should be negociated between these two properties for
joint use of a cOllll1on access point to Ute Avenue.
4. The comments of the City Engineer are attached. He rec-.
ommends approval of the conceptual subdivision subject to
additional dedication (10') for Ute Avenue and other
concerns which are herein addressed.
5. Due to the close proximity of this project to the Aspen
core, which facilitates pedestrian use, we support the
reduction in parking spaces fl'1Om twelve (12) spaces to
four (4) spaces. Such reduction will also facilitate
the saving of the existing large cottonwood trees by
reducing the area of excavation for the project. It
should be clear that no parking is allowed along Ute
Avenue.
6. With the above considerations in mind the Planning Office
recommends approval of the conceptual subdivision of these
apartments. '
i',~'., ..
....
..~. :..,--. <.
"
~,
1'"'\.
w
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TOM JONES
ASST. CITY ENGINEER
DATE: APRIL 16, 1976
RE: THE COTTONWOODS CONCEPTUAL REVIEW
Several of the required items were either missing or
incomplete on this submittal. The addresses and
phone numbers of the subdivider and owners were
missing, and no list of adjacent landowners was
supplied so that we could not determine if the
subdivider owned. or had options on any of it. I
also made some minor additions to the location map.
Two existing buildings adjoining the west side of
the property were not shown, and no provisions for
additional right-of-way for Ute Ave. were made.
We will require a 10 foot dedication for this
street. There is also some confusion as to whether
there will be two or four owners of the property
after it is subdivided. We also feel that the
name "Cottonwoods" should be changed, as there is
an existing complex in town by the same name. One
other problem that will need to be addressed in the
next review stage is the question of continued
access for the existing home east of this site.
,
~'!
-.
1
I
,
i
,~
oi!':.
r-''''\
L~~=J
r:
j L_-l
I (";=Oi
'-' \ I
;--.. .
~----,..
,-
'-- '"
r-'~-' .. I
~~~.:~ -"i
L. -: -.;.:;-]
.;....- .
i,.-:,I!'
"- 'J'
i'....--
, '-1
[~
C-j
.--:,~. --.
L_,!
---J
1---: .
'-..- ..,
c;,--:'i
..- ~~)
1--1
~_,--J
Or:\
\ '--' )
......__.~
,.........-- j
l..~; L,
---..1
r---.'
~~
L---...J
1-.1
-~.....,
-- -'
I ~_~4
, :
---n
r---' .
. I
L-.___
r'--
! (--,)
l..'-j
C~-;J
.._' l...__.
L.._-1
Y
~-:J
r"=:J
nun
I '
I 'I
r--,
IC~1
SJ
L::-'
r:;;2
-"--J
LJ
r:'l
L':_J
r;-"
~ L._' )
"-.-._--
r' "
, c. t'l t
I .._~ ,
"-..._,1
"-
,
,-.,
THE COTTONWOODS
CONCEPTUAL PRESE1\1T A TION
~
J,'
..'"
r
I
!
..._ v
~
!""'\
I,
lioi
(,~::".\
I L....J I
1___._-1
f';
!L__.
I C 0-.':
~-j,~~~j
In accordance with Section 24 -8. 7, Paragraph B of Ordinance 71
the following information is set forth to assist the members of the
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commissi.on and City Council in better
understanding the planning objectives of the owners and architects
of "The Cottonwoods, .. a four -unit apartment hause, as canceptually
described on the attached drawing.
r'-~...
'...->-.1
~~~j
t::'~~~'~:l
t ...--:
,-----
Since the parcel of property the project is being planned far is
already zoned R -6 mandatary P. U. D. it is .obvious that the Plan-
ning and Zaning Cammissian is in agreement that the only viable
approach ta develaping this land is through a P. U. D. The archi-
tects and owners als.o believe that a P. U. D. is the proper planning
appraach far develaping this land as it wauld imprave the overall
character and quality of the new project. Alsa, a P. U. D. would
pramate mare efficient use of the land, public streets, utilities,
and gavernmental and private services.
r-.---:
;::;~:':R ::-~:i
L__~_.j
(:' .J
,__ . I
--'-...1
r--"-,
,
"'-:.::;. :-)
r --,
, I
("i~-'
I #r ,.. t
. '--~)
\..~-;~..~
G>=
r-."--'::'::-:\
In considering the physical canfiguration .of the site it is easily
understood why the mandatary P. U. D. designation was attached
ta it. Withaut a P. U. D. appraach the site cauld be obliterated. It
would be cavered with single-family residences, driveways, auta- ""V
mabile parking and utility easements. Obviously there would be ~ .
none .of the sites natural amenities left to enjay. ('", .,.u
, ,II
The architectural program calls for faur three-bedraam apart- ,/ Lt.{ I.t'"
ments which will be permanently .occupied bv four families wha '-' ~', ti
!lre iointly J;mildi!1g the praject. All faur apartment units will be~'WJ
identical in plan with bedrooms and baths an the first floar and Y,
living, dining, and kitchen facilities at the upper level. Sectianally
the building will be as low as possible and still comply with building
code requirements for natural light and ventilatian.
;,~
C~J
L~J
---.
r~_,.~.,<
L_.~__--,l
i-I
~._-J
,-- --.
r--- \
\./='=~. }
c.::;-';::'J
L 1
L..:']
r~"'-
l. _,..".J
C..,j
.[lfl
-~
In accordance with Section 24-8.17, Ordinance 71 the architects
and .owners request that the number .of required parking spaces be
lawered fram 12 ta 4. The architect will explain their reasoning
an this matter at the canceptual reviews by P & Z and Cauncil.
~
C-:J
L-::J
c8
..,Jl
L__,...J
[~,~J
r:-:.:,
\ '.---)
.... .~--.-'
r.... :"-
I c~:,)
'--_,_.1
Landscaping will be handled with as little site disturbance as pos-
. sible and will cansist mainly of tree screening at the prapel'ty lines
far privacy and railraad tie cribbing to retain minimum cuts abave
the parking area. The building h,as been placed on the site so na
majar trees will have to be removed on its accaunt. The project
name shauld serve as indication of the owners and architects intent
with respect ta the trees on the site.
.' "..~':;,
. "'.<" ~'~
...
1"",
i""\
......--.'. (:
~l
(';,::, )
L.___.J
[ -
J L__...__
I ,--.,;:
L: . I
~__J ,
. ,
Finally with regard to future ownership it is the intention of the
owners to retain title to the project indefinately. They are
building the project for their own use and have no intention of
selling it in the immediate future.
"r--'""..
L
--.-
l..:__...
L,
f,' -,j
---; .
~ '.
r' -"-. -~~
{ ...--.--,....
.-
r
L_...
Respectfully submitted
Copland Fi~,H~,gman Yaw Ltd
. ~~::ffl-,)'a rli;}"'$~,
U'L ~'(::?'-'Y~'~
James J. Copland
f'.~ . ".J
l.... . .,~
'" ;
f'-'-=j
"",. ._-.~
(- .. "..:.
L....,.-.-J
/": ;"-,
...,....1 I
~~..::~-;;~!
C'-::
'-,. ,
nC:sb
Enc!.
r-"""l
1;...'_. ,_'v,'
[-:~..~~J
r-:-'-j
>... ~,.'" --"';
r -~'-:l
i..-.____~
: 1
r--' !
L.._.:_.,._.1
(.:,,':
I.:,":-J
r'H~ "I
l.-... ,.......
C"'::',.1
r-- .._--,
t__.,._ I
~~ . ....
t.. _...~~..~J,
~.,._~_._".
~__._,~4~_~~;
1- j r-~
. '.... --I
1..--.__--'
[S""
c~.1
--=:J
c.,:J
L':,!
--.-,
f-..... c'
'- -,' ..
-".,;:d
; ,
(....... i
_______.._..J
,r'"
["'1
;;:;...::~:;:-<
li
~. ."."
,'", t +~',
! ,,') i
. \..:_.u"......
""\1,'."
...