The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.610 S West End St.A016-02CASE NUMBER A016-02 PARCEL ID # 2737-182~67014 CASE NAME Gant Insubstantial PUD Amendment PROJECT ADDRESS 610 S. West End Street PLANNER Sarah Oates CASE TYPE Insubstantial PUD Amendment OWNER/APPLICANT Gant Condominium Association REPRESENTATIVE Alan Richman DATE OF FINAL ACTION 3/5/02 CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION Aooroved BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 3/13/02 BY J. Lindt MEMORANDUM TO: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer ~'C__~ RE: Gant Condominiums--Insubstantial PUD Amendment DATE: February 25, 2002 SUMMARY: Alan Richman, representing the Gant Condominiums, owner, is requesting an insubstantial amendment to an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD). The applicant has submitted a building permit to construct an elevator addition to Building D of the complex. The Gant Condominiums were approved as a Planned Unit Development in the early 1970s and several modifications have been made since that time. Building D is currently the only building on the property that does not have an elevator. Staff has reviewed this proposed amendment and recommends administrative approval by the Director. APPLICANT: Gant Condominiums, Owner. LOCATION: 610 S. West End Street. ZONING: R-15 (L) PUD. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Insubstantial amendments to an approved PUD may be approved by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section 26.4.45.100(A). STAFF COMMENTS: Review criteria and Staff` Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." The application is Exhibit RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Community Development Director approve this Insubstantial PUD Amendment to allow the construction of an elevator on Building D of'the complex. APPROVAL: I hereby approve this Insubstantial Amendment to allow the construction of an elevator on Building D of the complex. Woods, CommunC-~ty Development/Director ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application 2 Exhibit A Review Criteria Insubstantial PUD Amendment. 1. A change in the use or character of the development. Staff Finding: With this proposed amendment, the use and intensity remains the same as approved. The change does not alter the character of the development. 2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structm'es on the land. Staff Finding: The proposal substantially meets this requirement~ Please see the applicant's response to this standard. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. Staff Finding: Trip generation and demand for public infrastructure are not affected by this change. 4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space. Staff Finding: The proposal substantially meets this requirement. Please see the applicant's. response to this standard. 5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading space. Staff Finding: The applicant is not requesting an amendment to the existing or required number of parking spaces. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements. Staff Finding: The applicant is not proposing changes to right-of-way widths. 7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. Staff Finding: There is no increase in the gross leasable floor area. 8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development. Staff Finding: The applicant is not proposing a change in the residential density. 9. Any 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. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does require an alteration to the dimensional requirements as established in the PUD. February 21, 2002 ' · s. Sarah Oates, Zoning Officer City of Aspen Cfiii~tiiiity Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen. Colorado 81611 RE: GANT CONDOMiiqlUM~S~ Dear Sarah. I represent the Gant Condomiiiitifli-~'S~l~i~i~h;'~'ih:~c~l~e'r~i~fte~- ';th~ ;~,~i~-~,~;;'~ · . r ...... r~ ....... /' The applicant has submitte.d. ~ building permit application to the city to construct an elevator addition to the D Building. '~' Diii:lfl~the course of your review of that application for Compliance with the Land Use Regulations, you determined that an application for a PUD Amendment needed to be processed before you could sign off on ~he building Permit. The purpose"of this letter is to provide you with that PUD ~hdraen~i ~P~i~tion. Following are the applicant's responses to the standards by which the Community Development Director may a~ze~[~!~§ubstantial amendment to a PUD. as found in Section 26.445.090 A 0f~tti~ C~'~ ...... ....... ~ The following shall not be cori~id~?~Cl an msubstantzal amendment: l. .4 change in the use or character of the develo£ment. Response: The Gant is a multi-family accommodations development. No change to the existing character of this developmeni will occur as~ result of the addition Of the elevator. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land.~ iar,.e~ t~I Da_K~(I~I~i~ &r~m~¢ct.s has calculated the existing footprint of all of the buildings at the Gant and has found the site coverage to be approximately 58,439 sq. ft. Since the total land area of the Gain is 240,5~_~q.'ff., hib-i~i:~mately 24.3% of the site is presently covered with buildings.-'Tti-e~l~bsed elevator would add approximately 60 sq. ft. to this foo~isrinL 'T'ti~-i~tal site coverage after the elevator is built would Still be approximately 24.3%. - Ms. Sarah Oates Februa~ 21;'200~ Page Two 3. A ,y amendment that subst, anaally tncreases trip generatton rates of the proposed development, Or the dem ahd for publiC fa¢Tii'~s. Response: The acrd~tton of an elevator to the D Building 4/i~fi~h~ generation, or create any demands for public facilities, 4. .4 reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space. Response: ar.c~ l'iallln llaS also calculatecl the ex~stlng amount of open space 'at the Gant and has found that approximately 48.4% of the site (116,427 ~q. proposed elevator would not be built m open space; rather it would remove an existing parking space: However, ~he applicant intends to replace this parking space, by eliminating an open are~a"of approximately 50 sq. ft., to install 2 new parking spaces. Thi'S minimal reduction in open space"~ill remove far less than 3% of the existing open space. 5. .4 reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading space. Response: As noted above, parking on ~he property will hot b~ 1 space. 6. .4 reduction in required pavement widths or fights-of-way fo~ streets and easements. Response:-~No such reduction will occur as part of this project. 7. Ancommercialinc~ease buildings.°f gre~ter ~han two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of Response: No such increase will be caused by this project. 8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development. Response: No change in density .......... " Wili'6~d~r ~ part of this project. 9. Any change which '" ~ ts mconststent wtth a qRndit~on 9~ rePres~ntation of the project's original approval or whicii' rbq~tires granting a variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. Response,/- Th~' fipiSli~'i/hX l'~ not aO~"~-~aW~of any~on~hitt;r~'~ o~'}~}~pr~;s~;"~ta~i;~s~o-~i~e'~,ith*~-~'~"~ original approval which wofiid b~-'~f6~'¢d by tfii~ pr~i~0Sai. Ms. Samti'Oates February. 21. 2002 Page Thr~e As a final note, I would point out that I have not included-i~fi typical lfind use application attachments, such as proof of the oWnership of the property, as I assume that you have this information~as ~part of the bui)ding pernlit application. As you requested, I have provided a letiei'"'froin the applicant authorizing me to submit this application on their behalf. If there ~'i~:~:~/fi~iii{ifi~ :~lse YOu reqtfire, please do not hesitate to contact me or Molly Campbell, the General Manager 0~ the Gant CondominiUmS! Very truly yours, Alan Richman, AICP EX[IIBIT #1 Ms. Sarah Oates Zoning Enforcement Officer City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: GANT CONDOMINIUMS APPLICATION FOR PUD AMENDMENT Dear Ms. Oates, The Gant Condominium Association, Inc. hereby authorizes Alan Richman Planning Services to act as its designated representative with respect to the application for PUD Amendment being submitted to your office for its property, located at 610 West End Street in Aspen. Alan Richman is authorized to submit this application on our behalf, He is also authorized to represent us in meetings with the City of Aspen staff. Should you have any need to contact us during the course of your review of this application, please do so through Mr. Richman, whose address and telephone number are included in the land use application. '~t~Con~im Association, Inc. Molly Cam~A¥ General Manager 610 West End Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 925-5000