Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.20 Ajax Ave.88A-89 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 9/6/89 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2737-074-00-018 88A-89 STAFF MEMBER: ceoe- PROJECT NAME: Smuggler Run MHP SPA/PUD Insubtantial Amendment Project Address: 20 Ajax Ave. Legal Address: Lot J, Smugqler Run MHP APPLICANT: Susan Gardner Applicant Address: Same REPRESENTATIVE: Same Representative Address/Phone: 5-4196 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $50.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 1 TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 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: / Paid: _ _ Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: ✓ Date: REFERRALS: City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW) Aspen Water Fire Marshall State Hwy Dept(GJ) City Electric Building Inspector Envir. Hlth. Roaring Fork Other Aspen Consol. Energy Center S.D. q DATE REFERRED: !/�s4.Y INITIALS: 1 FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: lo%S4-"J INITIAL: 47;6.- City Atty City Engineer / Zoning Env. Health Housing Other: ��(J FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: /�{� C.� MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: Gardner Smuggler Run MHP SPA/PUD Insubstantial Amendment DATE: September 29, 1989 SUMMARY: The applicant seeks to amend the SPA/PUD plan for a 96 square foot room addition and a 40 square foot deck. Staff recommends approval with conditions. FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 7-907 the following criteria shall be used to determine if an amendment is insubstantial thereby authorizing the Planning Director to sign off: 1. A change in the use or character of the development. RESPONSE: The proposal does not change the character of the development or the particular parcel. It will remain a single family home. 2 . An increase by greater than three (3%) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land. RESPONSE: The site is 3062 square feet. Currently there is a 31% site coverage. With the 96 foot room addition adds 3% to the overall coverage. The 40 foot deck, which will be less than 30" above grade, is not considered site coverage. 3 . Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. RESPONSE: This proposal will not increase the demand for public services and will not increase trip generation. 4 . A reduction by greater than three (3%) percent of the approved open space. RESPONSE: In the MHP zone there is no open space requirement. 5. A reduction by greater than one (1%) percent of the off- street parking and loading space. RESPONSE: The proposal does not affect the parking or loading area. The addition is a bedroom expansion and does not add new bedrooms. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements. 7 . An increase of greater than two (2%) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. RESPONSE: Not applicable. 8. An increase by greater than one (1%) percent in the approved residential density of the proposed development. RESPONSE: There is not a required FAR for the MHP zone. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Director approve the insubstantial amendment with the following condition: 1. In order for this application to remain an insubstantial amendment the deck must not exceed 30" above natural grade. I hereby approve the above insubstantial amendment to the PUD/SPA plan with conditions pursuant to Section 7-907 of the Aspen Land Use Code. L `�'�2 ,rte - Amy Margeru , Planning Dire or 11/gardner 2 ATTACHMENT 4 Review Standards: Development Application for Amendment to Approved PUD or SPA Plan 1. An insubstantial amendment to an approved Final Development Plan may be authorized by the Planning Director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process. The following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment: a. A change in the use or character of the development. b J An increase by greater than three (3%) percent in • - all coverage of structures on the land 4i7„, c. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. ` d. A reduction by greater than tree (3%) percent of the approved open space. cc -ye. A reduction by greater than one (1%) percent of the off-street parking and loading space. hX> f. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements. g. An increase of greater than two (2%) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. _ (h. An increase by greater than one (1%) percent in the approved residential density of the proposed develompent. EA 2 . The Planning Director's evaluation shall compare the proposed amendment to the original approval and if any other amendments have been approved since the original approval, shall consider the cumulative impacts of all approvals granted. 3 . All other modifications shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the Fin-al Develop- ment Plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved Conceptual Develop- ment Plan. 4 . In the absence of an approved Final Development Plan, an accurate improvements survey of existing conditions may be substituted to permit evaluation of whether the proposed activity is an insubstan- tial or other change to the site.