HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.pu.MidlandPark F2.Insubst.A69-96CASF'-OAD SUMMARY SHEET -CITY Or =:SPEN
DATE RECEIVED: 10/6/96 CASE # A69-96
DATE COMPLETE: STAFF: Dave Michaelson
PARCEL ID # 2737-074-12-726
PROJECT NAME: Midland Pazk Insubstantial PUD Ammendment (Unit F2)
Project Address: 602 Midland Pazk Place
APPLICANT: Joseph Wells
Address/Phone: 602 Midland Park Place Aspen, Co. 81611 925-8080
REPRESENTATIVE: same
Address/Phone:
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: Applicant Other Name/Address:
FEES DUE
PLANNING $450
ENGINEER $0
HOUSING $0
ENV HEALTH $0
CLERK $0
TOTAL $450.
REFERRALS:
^ City Attorney
^ City Engineer
^ Zoning
^ Housing
^ Environmental Health
^ Pazks
DATE REFERRED:
APPROVAL:
FEES RECEIVED
PLANNING f`$ ~rjp
ENGINEER $
HOUSING $
ENV HEALTH $
CLERK $
# APPS RECEIVED 1
# PLATS RECEIVED
GIS DISK RECEIVED: No
TYPE OF APPLICATION
TOTAL RCVD ~Q ; j~-D Staff Approval
^ Aspen Fire Mazshal
^ City Water
^ City Electric
^ Clean Air Board
^ Open Space Board
^ Other:
INTI'IALS:
Ordinance/Resolutio .
Staff Approval
Plat Recorded:
Date:
Date:
Book age
^ CDOT
^ ACSD
^ Holy Cross Electric
^ Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
^ Aspen School District
^ Other:
DATE DUE:
CLOSED/FII,ED DATE: INTI'IALS:
ROUTE TO: J ~ .~-> f ~1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Midland Park PUD Insubstantial Amendment (Unit F-2)
DATE: December 18, 1996
SUMMARY: Joe Wells, Applicant, is seeking to amend the Midland Park PUD which
was built in 1978. Mr. Wells seeks to enclose a 108 s.f. aze already under roof on the south
side of his unit (F-2), and to move a wall within the carport to encompass a storage area and
create an airlock entry to his unit. Staff recommends approval of this request as it qualifies
as an insubstantial change to the PUD. Application information is attached as exhibit "A".
APPLICANT: Joseph Wells
LOCATION: Unit F-2, Midland Park PUD, 602 Midland Park Place
ZONING: R/MF
BACKGROUND: The Midland Park project contains several buildings clustered in tri-
plex and other multi-family configurations. Each two bedroom unit was designed to have a
two-car cazport, but because of a setback issue at construction, Mr. Wells' unit and
neighboring Unit F-3 were forced to shaze the carport in front of Unit F-2. This creates a
hardship for Mr. Wells in that the main doorway to his home is at the rear of the carport,
requiring him and his family to negotiate between two cazs parked in the 21.5 foot wide
carport. Earlier this year, Mr. Wells and the owner of Unit F-3 created an agreement which
limits the parking area for Unit F-3 to a 8.5' x 18' space within the carport which allows for
a clear area to access the Unit F-2 doorway. Please refer to the agreement contained in the
application material.
STAFF COMMENTS: During the past several years there have been several insubstantial
amendments to the Midland Pazk project. In Mazch of this year ,the Planning Office
approved a request fora 233 square foot addition to Unit F-3. Staff reviewed the baseline
square footage presented in that application and determined that Midland Park was able to
absorb additional squaze footage as it was well below the 1:1 FAR allowed by code.
The drawing of the first floor plan shows two areas of solid yellow highlight which are the
subject of this memo. Mr. Wells proposes to move the south wall out 5 feet to meet the
roof overhang and end of the wing wall. As currently configured, the deeply inset south
wall does not allow the unit to benefit from the solar exposure. This represents an
expansion of 108 square feet of FAR. On the north side within the carport, Mr. Wells seeks
to move the exterior wa115.5 feet out, encompassing two storage closets in the carport and
creating an airlock entry. Storage would become interior to the unit. This represents an
expansion of 118 squaze feet of FAR.
The existing FAR for Midland Park is 32,733 square feet. The combined proposed
expansion is 226 square feet, or a .007 percent change. Because the two expansions are
underneath roofed areas, there is no change to site coverage for the parcel. Staff supports
the proposal finding that it meets the qualifications of an insubstantial PUD amendment as
set forth in Section 26.84.080 as follows:
1. The proposed amendments do not change the use or character of the development.
2. The proposed amendments do not increase the overall coverage of structures on the
land by more than 3%.
3. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase trip generation rates or
the demand for public facilities.
4. The proposed amendments do not result in a reduction in the approved open space
by more than 3%.
5. The proposed amendments do not result in a reduction ofoff-street parking by
more than 1%.
6. The proposed amendments do not result in a reduction in the required pavement
widths or rights-of--way for streets and easements.
7. The proposed amendments do not increase gross leasable commercial area.
8. The proposed amendments do not result in an increase in the approved residential
density by more than 1%.
9. The proposed amendments do not create a change which is inconsistent with a
condition or representation of the project's original approvals.
Staff proposes the following condition of approval:
I. Prior to the submission of the plans for building permit and zoning check, the
applicant shall attach a letter from the homeowner's association granting their permission
for the applicant to proceed with the project.
I approve the insubstantial amendment to the Midland Park PUD for the226 square foot
expansion to Unit F-2 subject to the one condition stated in this memo.
~_,_
Development Director
~~
Date
APPR~v~D
DE~1g1996
~MMUN1'n C~ ~ ~P N 1PEGtl~
3
Joseph Wells
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 970.925.8080
Facsimile: 970.925.8275
September 20, 1996
~~ ~7- ~7Y- is - 7~ G
~6~-y
~h~~~~"
Mr. Dave Michaelson
City of Aspen Dept of Community Development
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Dave:
As you and I discussed earlier, there are two long-standing problems
associated with my unit at Midland Park which I would like to address
through an Insubstantial Amendment procedure. The first of these prcblems
has to do with the entry on the north side of the unit and the second has to do
with the low roof overhang on the south side. I am forwarding for your
review some background information regarding the unit and past approvals
at Midland Park as well as information regarding the proposed changes.
A. Background:
I have owned a townhouse unit at Midland Park since the project was
completed in 1978. My unit is designated as "F-2" on the Condominium
Plat and is the middle unit of a three-unit building. Originally, each of
these three units was designed with atwo-space carport on the north side
of each unit. Unit F-1 was completed as designed but during construction,
it was determined that the easternmost unit (Unit F-3) as designed was
located within the required setback under the County zoning at the time.
Consequently, that unit was shifted to the north, the carport on that unit
was deleted and the carport on my unit was designated as a carport to be
shared by Unit F-2 and Unit F-3.
Although there is an entry door on the south side of each of these units,
no walk was ever built around the side of the building from the parking
areas to these entries, so everyone enters these three units through the
north side entry. In my case, that means I not only enter through the
carport, but it is also a carport which is shared with my neighbors and their
guests, who are not always aware of the situation; and sometimes block
access into my unit.
Because of the narrow width of the carport (approximately 21.5 feet), the
shared space idea only works even marginally for my unit if there is space
to walk between my car and Unit F-3's car to enter Unit F-2. The original
September 20, 1996
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Page two
Condominium Plat designated 50 percent of the carport area to Unit F-3's
use, without acknowledging the need for an accessway to Unit F-2.
Therefore, I previously resolved an agreement with the owners of Unit
F-3 (see attached) to limit the parking area for the use of Unit F-3 to that of
a standard city parking space so that there would be a legal access to my
unit.
So far as past approvals are concerned, staff previously researched the
record and concluded during this spring's review of Louise Brainard's
requested amendment that a number of insubstantial amendments had
been approved by the Planning Director at Midland Park prior to 1988.
However, staff became concerned with the cumulative impact of these
amendments, and in June of 1988 an insubstantial amendment for Unit
G-10 was approved by the Plaruung Director, with a condition that "no
future insubstantial amendments to the Midland Park PUD shall be
approved by the Planning Office." Staff informed the Homeowners'
Association that the PUD would need to be amended to address further
changes to the PUD.
Later, in August of 1988, Doug Graybeal researched the Midland Park
project to provide background information in an effort to process an
insubstantial amendment for his unit. His application was approved by
the Planning Director after staff found that there were "no concerns
regarding the cumulative impact of past proposals". His research showed
that the Midland Park site includes 114,562 sq. ft. of land area, which
would permit 114,562 sq. ft. of building square footage in the R/MF zone
district applying to the project. At that time, the existing floor area of the
units was approximately 32,500 square feet, which was 28 percent of what
was allowed under the floor area ratio of 1: 1. No substantial amendments
had been approved since the Graybeal request prior to the approval this
spring of a 233 sq. ft. addition to Unit F-3.
In its review of the proposed amendments to Unit F-3 earlier this year, the
Planning Office concluded that the information provided during the
Graybeal review was sufficient to nullify the condition that the Planning
Director would not approve any more insubstantial amendments to the
Midland Park PUD and as a result, staff recently continued with the
processing of the Brainard application and granted approval as indicated
in the March 6 memorandum.
B. North Side Enclosure:
The first issue I would like to address is the current entry situation on the
north side of the unit. I would like to reduce the walking (and visual)
September 20, 1996
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Page three
distance as much as possible from outside the carport to the entry of my
unit by building a new wall within the carport area 5.5 feet from the
existing entry and 2.5 feet from the existing wall of the storage units.
As a part of my agreement with the owners of Unit F-3, they agreed to
allow me to build a new wall in the area adjacent to the south end of the
two designated parking spaces in the carport and to create an airlock entry
for Unit F-2 to cut down on airflow into the unit. I agreed to eliminate the
outward-opening doors in the existing wall to avoid infringing on Unit
F-3's re-defined parking area. Having a solid wall in this location will also
provide better thermal insulation for my unit and will internalize the
plumbing for the unit which has historically tended to freeze easily
because of its existing location in an exterior wall.
C. South Side Enclosure:
The second area which I would like to enclose is an area of approximately
108 sq. ft. (5 ft. by 21.5 ft.) on the south side of Unit F-2. On the south side
of all of the buildings at Midland Park, the architects designed a deep roof
projection or overhang of approximately 5 feet to provide screening from
the sun. For some reason, however, the overhang on the three units in
Building F is over one foot lower than on all of the other buildings. In
addition, a wing wall was added by the architects along the outside walls
which extends out to the edge of the overhang. As a result of these two
design features not found elsewhere within the project, the living area of
the units in Building F are considerably darker and colder than the other
units in the project. This is particularly the case in the afternoon, when
the living area in my unit is further shaded by the staggered arrangement
of the units in Building F. By extending the south wall out, more sunlight
will be transmitted into the unit and the space should be warmer.
D. Summary of Changes:
The changes can be summarized as follows:
1. Plans:
a. Lower Level:
Move north wall out approximately 5.5 feet. Move south wall out
approximately 5 feet to the edge of roof overhang and east wing
wall.
b. Upper Level:
No change.
September 20, 1996
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Page four
2. Elevations:
a. North Elevation:
Move lower level wall and entry door inside of F-2/F-3 carport out
5.5 feet from existing entry and 2.5 feet from wall of storage units.
Outward-opening storage unit doors are eliminated.
b. East Elevation:
No change.
c. South Elevation:
Move lower level wall out 5 feet to the line of low roof overhang
and wing wall on east side of unit. Window units are re-installed,
although door may be shifted to the center of the wall, with window
units located on either side of the door.
d. West Elevation:
No change.
D. Insubstantial PUD Amendment Procedures:
Section 26.84.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Insubstantial PUD
Amendment, authorizes the Community Development Director to
approve an insubstantial amendment to an approved PUD, if:
1. The proposed amendments do not change the use or character of the
development.
Response:
The two spaces in question are presently covered exterior areas used
exclusively by the owner of Unit F-2. The north space is presently used
for access to the owner's storage units on either side of the carport and
the south space is used as a seating area and child's play area. The
spaces are recessed under existing covered areas, so the visual impact
will remain the same.
2. The proposed amendments do not increase the overall coverage of
structures on the land by more than three percent (3%).
Response:
The site coverage will remain the same. The north space is presently
part of the carport and is enclosed on both sides by walls and is covered
above by the bedroom level of the unit. The south space is also
September 20, 1996
Mr. Dave Michaelson
page five
enclosed on both sides by walls and is covered by a roof. Neither
enclosure extends beyond the existing building footprint.
3. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase trip
generation rates or the demand for public facilities.
Response:
The amendment will not increase trip generation rates or demand for
public facilities. The population of residential uses are typically
calculated based on the number of bedrooms and the unit will remain
a three-bedroom unit.
4. The proposed amendments do not result in a reduction in the
approved open space by more than three percent (3%);
Response:
The approved open space is not reduced. The spaces in question
cannot be included in open space calculations because they are covered.
5. The proposed amendments do not result in a reduction in the off-
streetparking and loading space by more than one percent (1%).
Response:
Off-street parking will not be reduced. The owners of Unit F-2 and
Unit F-3 have previously entered into an agreement to preserve the
two existing parking spaces for each unit which are located within the
carport and adjacent driveway while maintaining a walkway to Unit
F-2. One additional parking space is available for these three-bedroom
units in the common parking area.
6. The proposed amendments do not result in a reduction in the
required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements.
Response:
Required pavement widths and rights-of-way within the project are
unaffected by the proposal. There are no dedicated streets within the
project.
7. The proposed amendments do not result in an increase in the
approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings by more
than two percent (2%).
September 20, 1996
Mr. Dave Michaelson
Page six
Response:
This standard is not applicable to residential projects.
8. The proposed amendments do not result in an increase in the
approved residential density of the development by more than one
percent (1%).
Response:
The residential density is not increased as a result of the proposal.
9. The proposed amendments do not create a change which is
inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original
approval or which requires granting a further variation from the.
project's approved use or dimensional requirements.
Response:
Even though the two spaces are described on the recorded plat as
"general common elements" of the project, both areas have been used
exclusively by the owner of Unit F-2 since the project was completed.
The carport area proposed to be enclosed is the access area for the tcvo
storage units owned by Unit F-2 and must presently be kept clear in
order for the storage unit doors to be operated. In the case of the area
proposed to be enclosed on the south side, the owners of the other two
units in the building have previously been granted permission to build
decks for their individual use underneath the overhangs of their units.
The increase in floor area resulting from the enclosure of the north
area is approximately 118 sq.ft., of which 53 sq. ft. is presently included
within the two enclosed storage units. The increase in floor area
resulting from the enclosure of the south area is approximately 108
sq.ft. Therefore, based on the assumption that the total floor area at
Midland Park is now approximately 32,733 sq. ft., the proposed
enclosure of 226 sq.ft. will increase the floor area by less than .007
percent and clearly is well within the FAR limitation for the site.
Let me know what your thoughts are about these proposed amendments.
Regards,
-_ ~
~!~J/
~L "--~~--~.,-
Joseph Wells
~.
39~~E8c iD6/14/9E 09:,1(a F'G 1 OF 4 REC DOC UCC
SILVIR DRVIS F'ITKIN COUNTY CLERK R RECORDER cl.l~0
AGREEMENT REGARDING USE OF GARAGE/PARKING
AREA SHARED BY UNIT F-2 AND UNIT F-3,
MIDLAND PARK CONDOMINIUMS
THIS AGREEMENT is made as of the day of i~, ~~ , 1996 by and
between Joseph Wells ("Wells"), Louise Brainard ("Brainard") and Michael Marolt
("Marolt"), with reference to the following:
RECITAL
The parties are owners of adjoining condominium units in the Midland Park
Condominiums -Wells being the owner of Unit F-2 thereof and Brainard and
Marolt being the owners of Unit F-3 thereof -and wish to set forth herein their
agreement and understanding regarding the use and maintenance of the shared
Garage/Parking Area (herein so-called) appurtenant to their respective units.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recital and other good and
valuable consideration the receipt, sufficiency and adequacy of which hereby are
acknowledged, the parties agree that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary
shown on or contemplated by the recorded condominium map for the Midland
Park Condominiums or the recorded Condominium Declaration therefor, as
between the owner(s) at any time of Units F-2 and F-3, the following shall apply:
a. Those areas of the Garage/Parking Area identified as Area A ("Area
A") and Area B ("Area B") on Exhibit A hereto annexed ("Exhibit "A"), each
being an area of eight feet-six inches (8'-6") wide by eighteen feet (18'-0") long,
shall be set aside and reserved exclusively for covered and uncovered
parking, respectively, for the use of the owner of Unit F-2. Those areas of the
Garage/Parking Area identified as Area C ("Area C") and Area D ("Area D")
on Exhibit A, each being an area of eight feet-six inches (8'-6") wide by
eighteen feet (18'-0") long, shall be set aside and reserved exclusively for
covered and uncovered parking, respectively, for the use of the owner of Unit
F-3. Lack unit owner shall be responsible for maintaining the area set aside
and reserved for the exclusive use of such owner in a clean and presentable
condition, free of debris.
b. The area identified as Area E ("Area E") on Exhibit A lying between
Area A and Area B on the one hand and Area C and Area D on the other
shall be utilized jointly by the owners of Unit F-2 and Unit F-3 on a co-equal
basis for access to and egress from the garage and parking areas hereby
confirmed for their respective units and by the owner of Unit F-2 for access to
and egress from Unit F-2 and shall, at all times, be kept free and clear of any
personal property by the parties to the end that unimpeded access to and
egress from the parties' respective garage and parking areas and to Unit F-2
shall at all times exist over Area E.
1
~.., -
J
c. The area identified as Area F ("Area F") on Exhibit A, being an area of
approximately two feet-six inches (2'-6") wide by approximately twenty one
feet-three inches (21'-3") long, shall be set aside and reserved for the exclusive
use of Unit F-2, and to this end the owner of Unit F-2 shall have the right to
enclose Area F, provided that any doors installed within Area F as shown on
Exhibit A will be installed so that they do not intrude to any degree upon
Area C, including when such doors are operated.
d. Brainard and Marolt hereby consent to, and agree not to object to any
formal request made by the owner of Unit F-2 of the applicable condominium
owner, condominium association, any governmental agency having
jurisdiction or authority in the premises, or otherwise, to the use by the
owner of Unit F-Z of the area identified as Area G ("Area G") on Exhibit A for
future enclosed access to and egress from Unit F2.
The terms and conditions hereof shall constitute covenants that run with, benefit
and burden Units F-2 and F-3 and shall be binding upon the owner(s) at any time
thereof, as well as upon such owner(s), heirs, successors, grantees or assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been made and entered into as of the
day and year first above written. ~~ ~
WELLS
39.:,68' X6/14/96 iZt9:31A F'G ~ OF 4
2
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF PITKIN
)ss.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this a7'"'day of
~~, 1996 by Joseph Wells.
Witness my hand and official seal.
~VIy commission expires: 3/~~
Notary Pu~~
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
i
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~~ day of •: ~;,; ``.:
~'iliU ~ 1996, by Louise Brainard. ~ - ~ .. ;•,'';`~`
Witness my hand and official seal. ,_
My commission expires: 3144 /4~
Notary Public
STATE OF COLORADO )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of
~, 1996, by Michael Marolt.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: ,S-/.Z 9£r
~ ..
Notary Public `•
,'•,.
Rh \ w ells \ garage-p. agr
3
~9368~ 2f6/14/96 09:31R F'G 3 OF 4
u
r~
m
5
~'~~
h7
Q'
fl
~,
kv E
Z
~v~ I
y
> a
~
r2
F b
i.../
Joseph Wells
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 970.925.8080
Facsimile: 970.925.8275
December 18, 1996
Ms. Kim Johnson
City of Aspen Dept of Community Development
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Kim:
As you and I discussed recently, I was unable to have afollow-up discussion
with my neighbor regarding shifting the west wall of my carport but decided
to go ahead and revise my request to show the relocation of the wall in light
of your pending departure. You discussed the change with staff and it was
concluded that, even though I acknowledge that any approval of the revision
would subsequently require asign-off from the owner of Unit F-l, I should
have asign-off in hand prior to processing that portion of my request. In
light of staff's decision, I am requesting that we table that part of my request
until I have an opportunity to have further discussions with my neighbor.
Let me know if you need additional information about the other proposed
amendments.
Regards,
C s~..
,_ Joseph Wells
~~
Joseph Wells
602 Midland Park Place
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: 970.925.8080
Facsimile: 970.925.8275
December 9, 1996
Ms. Kim Johnson
City of Aspen Dept of Community Development
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Kim:
As you and I discussed recelttly, I have been unable to have afollow-up
discussion with my neighbor regarding a further change to my Insubstantial
Amendment request which I want to make to create an actual entry for my
unit. Since you are leaving soon, and since I started these discussions with
Dave Michaelson, who has subsequently resigned, I have concluded that I
should get this additional request in front of you and try to resolve the change
with my neighbor later.
The attached drawing illustrates a shifting of the west wall of my shared
carport onto a narrow strip of open area between the paved driveway for my
shared carport and the driveway into my neighbor's carport. Rather than
supplement the information which I previously submitted on September 20,
I thought it might be helpful to you to revise that information to include the
revised request.
In addition, you previously raised two issues which we discussed. I thought
that I should document my response to those issues. The first of these had to
do with your thought that the condominium plat should be amended to
reflect these changes. Several attorneys have suggested that this is very
difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish because it requires asign-off by
every lienholder within the project. They have suggested, in the alternative,
that an agreement (similar to the recorded Agreement that I entered into with
the Owners of Unit F-3) between the owner of the unit in question and the
HOA should be recorded to document any approved changes.
The second issue you raised was the need to obtain an approval from the
HOA prior to proceeding with construction. As I mentioned, I acknowledge
that I need to obtain such approval, but it will require that I prepare
additional drawings and other information for review by the architectural
committee and the Board and I wanted to be sure that I could obtain asign-off
from the Planning Office before undertaking that additional effort.
December 9, 1996
Ms. Kim Johnson
Page two
As I mentioned previously, the following narrative from the prior submittal
has been revised to reflect the additional change requested.
There are two long-standing problems associated with my unit at Midland
Park which I would like to address through an Insubstantial Amendment
procedure. The first of these problems has to do with the entry on the north
side of the unit and the second has to do with the low roof overhang on the
south side. I am forwarding for your review some background information
regarding the unit and past approvals at Midland Park as well as information
regarding the proposed changes.
A. Background:
I have owned a townhouse unit at Midland Park since the project was
completed in 1978. My unit is designated as "F-2 on the Condominium
Plat and is the middle unit of a three-unit building. Originally, each of
these three units was designed with atwo-space carport on the north side
of each unit. Unit F-1 was completed as designed but during construction,
it was determined that the easternmost unit (Unit F-3) as designed was
located within the required setback under the County zoning at the time.
Consequently, that unit was shifted to the north, the carport on that unit
was deleted and the carport on my unit was designated as a carport to be
shared by Unit F-2 and Unit F-3.
Although there is an entry door on the south side of each of these units,
no walk was ever built around the side of the building from the parking
areas to these entries, so everyone enters these three units through the
north side entry. In my case, that means I not only enter through the
carport, but it is also a carport which is shared with my neighbors and their
guests, who are not always aware of the situation and sometimes block
access into my unit.
Because of the narrow width of the carport (approximately 21.5 feet), the
shared space idea only works even marginally for my unit if there is space
to walk between my car and Unit F-3's car to enter Unit F-2. The original
Condominium Plat designated 50 percent of the carport area to Unit F-3's
use, without acknowledging the need for an accessway to Unit F-2.
Therefore, I resolved an agreement with the owners of Unit F-3
(previously submitted) to limit the parking area which is used by Unit F-3
to that of a standard city parking space so that there would be a legal access
to my unit.
,.,.
December 9, 1996
Ms. Kim Johnson
Page three
So far as past approvals are concerned, staff previously researched the
record and concluded during this spring's review of Louise Brainard's
requested amendment for Unit F-3 that a number of insubstantial
amendments had been approved at Midland Park by the Planning Director
prior to 1988. However, staff became concerned with the cumulative
impact of these amendments, and in June of 1988 an insubstantial
amendment for Unit G-10 was approved by the Planning Director, with a
condition that "no future insubstantial amendments to the Midland Park
PUD shall be approved by the Planning Office." Staff informed the
Homeowners' Association that the PUD would need to be amended to
address further changes to the PUD.
Later, in August of 1988, Doug Graybeal researched the Midland Park
project to provide background information in an effort to process an
insubstantial amendment for his unit. His application was approved by
the Planning Director after staff found that there were "no concerns
regarding the cumulative impact of past proposals". His research showed
that the Midland Park site includes 114,562 sq. ft. of land area, which
would permit 114,562 sq. ft. of building square footage in the R/MF zone
district applying to the project. At that time, the existing floor area of the
units was approximately 32,500 square feet, which was 28 percent of what
was allowed under the floor area ratio of l: 1. No substantial amendments
had been approved subsequent to the Graybeal request until the approval
this spring of a 233 sq. ft. addition to Unit F-3.
In its review of the proposed amendments to Unit F-3 earlier this year, the
Planning Office concluded that the information provided during the
Graybeal review was sufficient to nullify the condition that the Planning
Director would not approve any more insubstantial amendments to the
Midland Park PUD and as a result, staff recently continued with the
processing of the Brainard application and granted approval as indicated
in staff's March 6 memorandum.
B. North Side Enclosure:
The first issue that I would like to address is the current entry situation on
the north side of the unit. I would like to reduce the walking (and visual)
distance as much as possible from outside the carport to the entry of my
unit by building a new wall to the north within the carport area 5.5 feet
from the existing entry and 2.5 feet from the existing wall of the storage
units. As a part of my agreement with the owners of Unit F-3, they agreed
to allow me to build a new wall in the area adjacent to the south end of
r_ ~ .
~. ,
December 9, 1996
Ms. Kim Johnson
Page four
the two designated parking spaces in the carport and to create an airlock
entry for Unit F-2 to cut down on airflow into the unit. I agreed to
eliminate the outward-opening doors in the existing wall to avoid
infringing on Unit F-3's re-defined parking area. Having a solid wall in
this location will also provide better thermal insulation for my unit and
will internalize the plumbing for the unit which has historically tended to
freeze easily because of its existing location in an exterior wall.
Additionally, I would like to move that portion of the west wall of the
carport which is alongside my parking space out further, so that there will
be enough width in the carport to create an enclosed entryway to my unit
as shown and still maintain the two parking spaces. The new wall would
add a covered space approximately 3'-9" in width by 18'-6" in length to the
carport, of which 6'-6" is under the existing carport roof of Unit F-1 and 12
feet is presently uncovered.
C. South Side Enclosure:
The second area which I would like to enclose is an area of approximately
108 sq. ft. (5 ft. by 21.5 ft.) on the south side of Unit F-2. On the south side
of all of the buildings at Midland Park, the architects designed a deep roof
projection or overhang of approximately 5 feet to provide screening from
the sun. For some reason, however, the overhang on the three units in
Building F is over one foot lower than on all of the other buildings. In
addition, a wing wall was added by the architects along the outside walls
which extends out to the edge of the overhang. As a result of these two
design features not found elsewhere within the project, the living area of
the units n1 Building F are considerably darker and colder than the other
units in the project. This is particularly the case in the afternoon, when
the living area in my unit is further shaded by the staggered arrangement
of the units in Building F. By extending the south wall out, more sunlight
will be transmitted into the unit and the space should be warmer.
D. Summary of Changes:
The changes can be summarized as follows:
1. Plans:
a. Lower Level:
Move north wall of unit out approximately 5.5 feet. Move west
wall of carport out approximately 3.75 feet. Move south wall out
approximately 5 feet to the edge of roof overhang and east wing
wall.
December 9, 1996
Ms. Kim Johnson
Page five
b. Upper Level:
No change.
2. Elevations:
a. North Elevation:
Move lower level wall inside of F-2/F-3 carport out 5.5 feet from
existing entry and 2.5 feet from wall of storage units. Outward-
opening storage unit doors are eliminated. Move west wall of
carport out 3.75 feet from existing wall and create recessed enclosed
entryway in between the two parking spaces.
b. East Elevation:
No change.
c. South Elevation:
Move lower level wall out 5 feet to the line of low roof overhang
and wing wall on east side of unit. Window units are re-installed,
although door may be shifted to the center of the wall, with window
units located on either side of the door.
d. West Elevation:
Move west wall of carport out 3.75 feet from existing wall. Note
that roof detail may need to be modified for structural reasons.
D. Insubstantial PUD Amendment Procedures:
Section 26.84.080 of the Aspen Municipal Code, Insubstantial PUD
Amendment, authorizes the Community Development Director to
approve an insubstantial amendment to an approved PUD, if:
1. The proposed amendments do not change the use or character of the
development.
Response:
No change in the use of the project is proposed. Two of the three areas
where changes are proposed are presently covered exterior areas used
exclusively by the owner of Unit F-2. The north space is presently used
for access to the owner's storage units on either side of the carport and
the south space is used as a seating area and child's play area. These two
spaces are recessed under existing covered areas, so the visual impact
will remain the same. The area to the west is a sliver of common area
between the two driveways serving the F-Building. The new wall
~,
December 5, 1996
Ms. Kim Johnson
Page six
would be detailed to be similar in appearance to the existing wall such
that the change will be difficult to distinguish from any distance. The
changes are clearly minimal, particularly in light of the dramatically
improved experience of entering the unit which will result from
moving the west wall out.
2. The proposed amendments do not increase the overall coverage of
structures on the land by more than three percent (3%).
Response:
The shifting of the west wall of the carport causes an increase in site
coverage of approximately 45 sq. ft. (3.75 ft. x 12 ft.). Although accurate
figures for the total site coverage of the project are not readily available,
site coverage can be approximated adequately for this purpose. The site
coverage is estimated conservatively as 60 percent of the FAR square
footage for the project of 32,733, or 19,640 sq.ft. Site coverage of
Buildings A, B, F, G and H is estimated to be 50 percent of building
square footage and the site coverage of Buildings C, D and E is
estimated to be 70 percent of building square footage. The change
therefore represents an increase of approximately .002 percent in site
coverage. The shift in the north wall occurs within the existing
carport. The space is enclosed on both sides by existing walls and is
covered above by the bedroom level of the unit. The south space is
also enclosed on both sides by walls and is covered by a roof. Neither
the north nor the south enclosure extends beyond the existing building
footprint, so neither affects site coverage.
3. The proposed amendments do not substantially increase trip
generation rates or the demand for public facilities.
Response:
The amendment will not increase trip generation rates or demand for
public facilities. The population of residential uses are typically
calculated based on the number of bedrooms and the unit will remain
a three-bedroom unit.
4. The proposed amendments do not result in a reduction in the
approved open space by more than three percent (3%);
Response:
The shift in the west wall encroaches onto a narrow strip of unpaved
area between two paved driveways. Technically, the strip should not
.~ ,
December 9, 1996
Ms. Kim Johnson
Page seven
be considered "open space" under the current Code definition because
it is not "open to view from a street' (the driveway within the project
is a private access which, because of its substandard design, was not
accepted by the City) and because it is not contiguous to a larger area of
open space and therefore it does not meet the minimum frontage
standard of 100 feet. Even if the strip were considered open space, the
reduction of only 45 sq. ft. would be a reduction of considerably less
than 3 percent. The north and south enclosures cannot be included in
open space calculations because they are covered areas.
5. The proposed amendments do not result in a reduction in the off-
streetparking and loading space by more than one percent (1%).
Response:
Off-street parking will not be reduced. The owners of Unit F-2 and
Unit F-3 have previously entered into an agreement to preserve the
two existing parking spaces for each unit which are located within the
carport and adjacent driveway while maintaining a walkway to Unit
F-2. One additional parking space is available for these three-bedroom
units in the common parking area.
6. The proposed amendments do not result in a reduction in the
required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements.
Response:
Required pavement widths and rights-of-way within the project are
unaffected by the proposal. There are no dedicated streets within the
project.
7. The proposed amendments do not result in an increase in the
approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings by more
than two percent (2%).
Response:
This standard is not applicable to residential projects.
8. The proposed amendments do not result in an increase in the
approved residential density of the development by more than one
percent (1%).
Response:
The residential density is not increased as a result of the proposal.
December 9, 1996
Ms. Kim Johnson
Page eight
9. The proposed amendments do not create a change which is
inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original
approval or which requires granting a further variation from-the
project's approved use or dimensional requirements.
Response:
Even though the areas where changes are proposed are described on
the recorded plat as "general common elements" of the project, both
the north and south areas have been used exclusively by the owner of
Unit F-2 since the project was completed. The west enclosure is in an
area that was originally a narrow sloping strip of lawn which was
difficult to maintain and has since been converted to a small flower
garden. However, because of the strip's location on the north side of
the building, the snow lingers in this area for a much longer portion of
the year than in the extensive flower garden areas which have been
added over the years on the south side of the building (the majority of
which have been added by the applicant).
The north area within the carport proposed to be enclosed is the access
area for the two storage units owned by Unit F-2 and must presently be
kept clear in order for the storage unit doors to be operated. In the case
of the area proposed to be enclosed on the south side, the owners of the
other two units in the building have previously been granted
permission to build decks for their individual use underneath the
overhangs of their units.
The increase in floor area resulting from the enclosure of the north
area is approximately 118 sq.ft., of which 53 sq. ft. is presently included
within the two enclosed storage units. The increase in floor area
resulting from the enclosure of the south area is approximately 108
sq.ft. The enclosure of the area to the west, which will be used for
covered parking, creates sufficient width in the carport for the addition
of an enclosed entryway of 5 ft. by 14 ft., which increases floor area by
approximately 70 sq.ft. Therefore, based on the assumption that the
total floor area at Midland Park is now approximately 32,733 sq. ft., the
proposed enclosure of 296 sq.ft. will increase the floor area by less than
.009 percent and clearly is well within the FAR limitation for the site.
i ~
S~ ~~--
QI ~ ~ ~~
~~ ~ °p'a
~ ~i ~ m
~ ~i
4~p
V d
~ i `,
v
a;
~-
~ ~ ~~~
y --- ,d
U ~.n
.v~'~~
----- o- L
,ogs a ,~ ~
~,
~.
~,,,
t ~ r,' ~',
'a'
o
a N
ti~
~
~ ~
'~
~ ~~
o~n
~.. ~, ~
W r T^1
N 1
11
q ,~
`~'.
N 0
~ m ~
_ 5 ,,
5 J,
~
~ J
~~pp
V ~ ~ `
. ~
x
V
1Ve ,N`
I V ~
\
`~N :;,; ;. ,,;;
! n ~\ ~ O ~ .'YYI I W ry \ t .~~'
Cy
\~ ~ i ~ ~ I
~I~ s~
O 7~ i.. ' ~ J v !
•~~ ~ ~p V
~ ~~ .~ ~~:
~~
N ,~~.
. `- '<
-___ w 1
~~
u p ~q
~ v ~ --
-~
~~ „
NQ
~9;~
:~ ~ __~-
~ 1.
' ~~ -
4 `~
p u1 ,~y
~~
~°-°~~`~
~~ N .
- - .-.
,,,,, - .
1 ~
~ ~k--
-,
.~,I ~~
~I
3I ~p ~~
~ I v. ~~
,I s
~ o
I ~ ~-
~'
- - --~~ . -
W
-_
^y~~ P
....-_ 11 ~---,.
,
y
GI
~~
,~
~~
_.a._
~'~.
A,¢ G
--- - -- --- - N o , ~~
o ~
~ ~ ~\
U, v o ~ I~
o ~~
j }\ ~ ~
~h-
n
f 4~
N '0
~~
I ~~
__
~ njo
I ~I~
~ .; .
i i i
y
:, ~ ,,
~ ,:~ _ ~~
I~ off. ..p - ~ ,
•~c~ I ,pla ,
I
F ~~
~I ~ 1 ~~
,,.
y ~ ~; ~,
_ __ N I ~ _ \~ _ ~
.1
,nJ ~~ Q
`~I O ` '
\9 0( ~ ~
~ V p1 - ti. `S ~d1
o Q
~U l a.. ~~- N _...__._
~; .
i
J~
\~ ' ~'.
r.
' y v.
'i~• i - ' -
t
~I
~~f~ aL~b _F I
y _._
_.._ -,Ai po7
I
I ~
7.
;'I
~.
,,. ,
~'~
N ,
~ r
`r r
''e ~
1` I
. ,.
~~ I ~
7;~"~', `~1~1 iF„r~ ~k~sr~` ~ t iL~Yi~r ,~~f, '.
{r p~~
~. ~~kt~~J. i~"]. ?Srllw~: Ctfl k.~ ~ ~f1 ~ ~~~ 1~ ~r~
~.aiG I f
P '+..
,y
it I
_ - - it I
/I II
I I
II
II
li
II
~~-. _-
I
~~ .I ,
~I
I I
'~ I
~I I
I II I
i I~ I
II
II I
--NT
_____~-F
it I
r_J I
~' ~ I ~ ~ ~
I ~
7 I :~
I ~'
I '
~I
I
~ i
I I
I I
I 1 ,
I I i
I I
I I
I I '
~I
_ L1:
~ I
r-t
I I
r ~ I~
I. 1!
I ;. i
I ~
I~
I p•
L' ~ ,
I '
,;.
~
~ . . .
~~.
01 ~,
~~
~~
i
i
l
~ ~~
~,
,r
~
----~~ , i
~I
ngL ~ i ~
I
- - - -
I~
'
I I
3
I ~ I
I ~
I I
i I I'- ~
--rL~_I I
I
i I
o; L
. _ I
a ~
~
l
~
I
, i
~
I
i
I
I
I
~ ~_
e~7 ^r h
:.
~ ~ ~ ~~
I j
I ~~
A
--_~$
_- i i
i ~ ~_~
i ~~
~,
- ~~
,,
- ,,
~~ I °
~~ ~~ ,:
"'
~; ~ . .
~~ ~
h r --- ~ ~
'~ ~
~~ i I i ~
~I I y_
I_ ~ ~
~. ~ ~-- -
~ ~I
~ i
\ _- ,
• - ~11~ I ~ I ~~
~ Q, " ~` j Lg5 y _ ~ j i
W ~
~~ i
l f~ ~ ~i i
~~ ~ ~11r^
,1 I ~
i
~~
- i ,~ i
\ _._ _, .
---
`. ~~ \ j
_..._----_._.- ~_~~ i i
~ ~ L i i
__- --~i
~ -A.~
i
1~N L ~ iv 'I i '.
I ~
I
~ ~ I I I
1
II ~~
1 ~ i
~ I ~ ~ ~~
Z ~ ~ ~I
~I
I II
~ ~~
II
~ °"_/
~ \ / I
i
~ .. ~.I
I U)
\ ~ f
F---- • -r- --- - - - ~ ~
v ~ ~ ~~
;:: ~ ;I i ~ ,;,
i it ,
~ L------- I ~ ~
i
`~ i ~
~ ,
i ,~
,,
~ ~ '
P ~ I ~~
~ ~ ~~~ i
'e.
i
i
~~ ~ ~ ~ i
--~ ~~
m ~ ~ ~ ~~
~ ~
N , i ~~
- ~i
i~
~~ ~.
! y N I ~ ~ ~~\ ~'I11
m~
~~
I. ~ ._
i
r~
I
'~ ' 1
~~
R _ ~ L,
.r;.
.4 ;
s. ~ ,~
:l
5 t. ; ~y ., ~ .1• .
:~l'~
l
' „ ~l •1
' ,'r
• t :. ..
T. I i
'1 ; ,.'•
..
,/ .r ~ .
f 1, ', ''' -`, .. `,r14•, '` x•1;'1
`` M, ~YI...1 .
. l}. ~` ~ l f l ~ •1 IJY 1251~1.11~4°N•2•. ••''1. ~,~•./:,d,'A
.. .. ',' ' : 'l
• 1 • ~ :. 1 ii: ~ .j . ..'ti.~.
~. 1^ ' ill l ii'i' ' '. yr'1 tAi~7 '1.
l ;l, '1.tf l' 1;_ ~ n ••~.:~j•~'j'`~:~. ~ .... ~ 41 li'~'~t •u
•+
• ~1 a L Iv .. r' s; } l ~ M~ 4
1 Ali ~! ~'" rr K~t ~ 1. ~"
.•. .• 1, l ~~,~ rl I( Ja ~~ M' ~ ~ ti~ ~~ ~•. 1 .1~.1'~~y~~i ~~~tif~~~1~~~~`~I~'`~S~S'~/''~.
l ..
~ v - J~^.
I.i ~ ~ ~ .. ;?j'.;~ S.. ~ r~l. ~l~ •l~ ': 1~. .yaifJ~i~'.i~ .~ ~ ~I~.1
.. 1 l 1~.2. 1', ..
r .. . .~ ~~
. 1 .. ~ 11 •;)
' 1 ~ f ,L
~. ~. •
,1 ,.
. .
:;. ...; •• .. j~.~
..
•
. 1 1.: ~ . .,
~ •.4.
.
••~ ~ • 1 •
1. '1
r
1 l
, ~ l• ,~ •i' 1.'
• , •. ,'
' \ ~s~
'.
.v°~~~
°% -
C~.,
- - r~
~ a I cV ~ ~ ~ I
~ ~ ~ ,4 Q
QI ~~ ---- - t~~ o~ I~~ ~ did
~ ~ ~ o
~1 0 ~ ._.._. ~;
o .P 5~~
r- ~ ~
o ° ~~ ~ ~~
~ i fit. -- - ~~ ~ .
. Q ~`
i ~~ i~ ~~ ~,o.
Vt i ~~-- ,~ , _ a1 ~
- ._ - - '~ -._ _~ S 'o
l~ ~ ~ \ -~
if `1 0' ~ `` .'
~~ ~ ~ . ~~i ~ ~ ~.
'IU " ~ _ _____
~ ~l ~ ~+
~ .ail ~ ~ !~ ~ ~ ~) n1 ~`- ....
~ -
~--- - y
Aspen/Pitkin Community
Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303)920-5090
City Land Use Application Fees:
00113-63850-041 Deposit
-63855-042 Flat Fee
-63860-043 HPC
-63875-046 Zoning & Sign Permit
- MR011 Use Tax
County Land i
00113-63800-033
-63805-034
-63820-037
-63825-038
Referral Fees:
Ise Application Fees:
Deposit
FlatFae
Zoning
Board`Yif Adjustment
o ~ _
~-
OOll3-63810-035 County Engineer
00115-63340-163 City Engineer
00123-63340-190 Housing
00125-63340-205 Envirpnmental Health
00113-638]5-036 County ~>`erk
Sales:
00113-63830-039 County Code
-69000-145 Copy Fees
Other
Name: -
Addres
~nC ~ i~ /~ ~ ~r~~
n~ o~~o., r_ kD;SO
y~ o 0 0
Total
Date1~~ Check:
Projec .
Case No: _~--
No. of Copies