Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20090616AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, June 16, 2009 4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS: A. Code Amendment, Commercial Design call-up (continue toll/3/09) Resolution #009-09 B. Five Trees Subdivision, PUD Amendment Resolution #010-09 C. 500 Doolittle Drive, SPA Amendment Resolution #011-09 VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN Y.a. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director FROM: Sara Adams, Historic Preservation Planner RE: Design call up code amendment- public hearing DATE: June 16, 2009 Staff reviewed the long range schedule and the number of pending current planning cases and recommends that the public hearing for a Code Amendment related to Design Call Up be continued to November 3, 2009. The public hearing was scheduled on April 21, 2009 and continued by the Planning and Zoning Commission to June 16, 2009. Planning and Zoning recommended that Staff allow ample time to discuss the proposed code amendment; which in turn, moves the heazing date to November. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to continue the public hearing for a proposed Code Amendment related to Design Call Up, specifically Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120; 26.412.040.B; 26.415.070.D.3; and 26.415.070.D.4, to November 3, 2009." denovomemopzcontinuacememo.doc Page - 1 - of 1 ~. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Directo>C~ DATE OF MEMO: June 10, 2009 MEETING DATE: June 16, 2009 RE: Moore Family PUD, Planned Unit Development -Other Amendment APPLICANT /OWNER: Five Trees Homeowners Association / Five Trees Metropolitan District REPRESENTATIVE: Beach Resource Management, Jim Korpela LOCATION: Civic Address -Various Addresses off Maroon Creek Road on Cinnamon Court, Falcon Road, Moore Drive, Powderbowl Trail Shavano Drive, Five Trees Lane, Cascade Lane, Bus Barn Lane, Sievers Circle, and Grey Talon Court. CURRENT ZONING & USE The Moore Family PUD contains a number of zone districts within it. The 30 Affordable Housing Units within the PUD aze Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) while the 40 free- market single-family lots aze Low- Density Residential (R-30). Additionally the ski club lot is zoned Public (PUB) and other areas aze zoned Pazk (P) and Conservation (C). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the PUD Amendment allowing for changes to the Moore Family Planned Unit Development Guide. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the PUD Amendment to make text changes to the Moore Family Planned Unit Development Guide allowing for an activity envelope on the building sites and revisions to the landscaping requirements. Page 1 of 4 BACKGROUND: The Moore Family PUD is located near the base of Highlands Ski Area and is managed by the Five Trees Metropolitan District. Established in 1998, the PUD was approved by the Board of County Commissioners and subsequently annexed into the City. The Moore Family Planned Unit Development Guide provides regulations governing land uses on the site. As the Guide has been implemented, it has become evident that several amendments would benefit the homeowners within the subdivision. The changes include creating an activity envelope and amending the landscaping requirements for replacement. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • PUD, Other Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.100 B. This application does not qualify for an insubstantial amendment. An amendment found to be consistent with or an enhancement of the ~~ approved final development plan, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing pursuant to Section 26.445.030. (C) Step 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall be considered the final action, unless the decision is appealed. PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS: Since the original Moore Family Planned Unit Development Guide was approved in 1998, home owners have discovered that it is not always possible to keep all activities confined to the established building envelope. Other subdivisions that were originally approved in the county often have both a building envelope (for structures and more intense development) and an activity envelope (for less intensive development); however, the Moore Family PUD was not approved with an activity envelope. Since other subdivisions in this area have activity envelopes, it seems reasonable to extend some limited functions outside the permitted building envelope such as dry wells, geothermal wells, and landscaping. The proposed PUD Amendment creates a defined Activity Envelope (AE) and Interim Disturbance Area (IDA) under Article VIII, Building Setbacks, of the development guide. Both Page 2 of 4 the AE and IDA allow for certain improvements outside the building envelope. Specifically, approved landscaping (liy both the Parks Department and Five Trees Metropolitan District), drainage features such as swales and drywells; geothermal wells, and trenching for utilities may occur within the Activity Envelope which shall be measured twenty (20) feet from the foundation of any principle or accessory building. An Interim Disturbance Area is defined as "an azea that is disturbed to trench and install utilities from the street to the structures located within the building envelope." The width of the trench is limited to ten (10) feet anfl is required to be replanted with native vegetation. A few additions to Article XVII, Landscaping, have also been included. A landscaping plan, approved by the Five Trees Metropolitan District as well as the Pazks Department is required to be submitted for any landscaping within the Activity Envelope or Interim Disturbance Area. Other changes include: allowances to plant some required tree mitigation within the Moore Family PUD's open space and allowing the replacement of diseased or dying trees outside of designated envelopes. Staff Comments The proposed text amendments are merely a housekeeping item to the existing Planned Unit Development Guidelines. Approving the amendments will allow for limited uses in a newly established Activity Envelope and Interim Development Area. The amendments will also allow property owners to plant vegetation in the open space, upon approval, if site constraints limit the location of plantings. The draft resolution included with this memo shows the proposed additional language in blue, italics while any proposed deletions are shown in red, strike- . through font. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the application is generally minor in nature. It appears to be consistent with the fmal development approvals and provides allowances for replacement plantings in the landscaping regulations and accommodates utility and drainage issues associated with the development of a residence. Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve of the amendments. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to approve the proposed amendments, they may use this motion "I move to approve the PUD Amendment to text of the Moore Family Planned Unit Development Guide." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Staff Findings Exhibit B -Example Landscape Plan Page 3 of 4 EXHIBIT A 26.440.050 Review Standards: Conceptual, Final, Consolidated, and Minor PUD A development application for Conceptual, Final, Consolidated and Final or Minor PUD shall conform with the following standazds and requirements. This application is an amendment to an existing PUD that does not qualify for an insubstantial amendment. While reviewing the proposed text amendment, the Planning and Zoning Commission must consider the following: 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. The proposed text amendments work to preserve, enhance and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area by allowing home owners to replace damaged landscaping and plant required trees in the Moore Family open space if site constraints do not permit re-vegetation of disturbed areas. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of the existing land uses in the surrounding area. The activity that will be allowed by the proposed text amendments will be consistent with the character is the existing land uses in the area. Currently, the building envelope restricts the location of landscaping and drainage. An activity envelope will allow additional flexibility with site design and will not impact the character of land uses in the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding azea. The proposed text amendments will not adversely affect future development of the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS, or allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to, or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Not applicable. Stafff:nds this criterion to be met. Page 4 of 4 RESOLUTION N0. ~~ (SERIES OF 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A PUD AMENDMENT AFFECTING THE MOORS FAMILY PUD DEVELOPMENT GUIDE BY AMENDING ARTICLE VIII, BUILDING SETBACKS AND ARTICLE XVII, LANDSCAPING, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the Five Trees Homeowners Association represented by Gary L. Beach of the Five Trees Metropolitan District, requesting approval of a PUD Amendment for the Moore Family PUD, Reception No. 420467; and, WHEREAS, the request seeks to create provisions to accommodate landscaping, drainage, and disturbances due to development and natural causes; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the proposed PUD Amendment; and, WHEREAS, the applicable code standard is outlined in Section 26.445.100(B) "Other Amendment"; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on June 16, 2009, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code as identified herein and approved the PUD Amendment by a vote of - ;and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission found that the proposed amendment meets or exceeds all of the applicable development standards; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the following changes to the "Moore Family Planned Unit Development Guide," recorded at Reception No. 420467 with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office: Section 1• Article VIII, Building Setbacks, which article sets forth standards for development, shall be amended to read as follows: ARTICLE VIII BUILDING SETBACKS All development, including grading, shall be contained within the Building Envelopes, with the exception of grading necessary for driveways and driveway retaining Page 1 of 4 walls, roads as depicted on the Detailed Submission grading plans, and berms, and landscaping in Open Space Area 9. In addition, certain improvements outside the designated building envelope may occur as provided herein. An Activity Envelope (AE) will be measured twenty (20) feet from the foundation of the principal and accessory structures on each residential lot. Permitted activities within the AE may include: - Approved landscaping (See Article XVII for landscaping requirements); and, - Drainage features including drainage stivales and drywells; and, - Geothermal wells; and, - Trenching for utilities. Finally, an Interim Disturbance Area (IDA) is defined as an area that is disturbed to trench and install utilities from the street to the structures located within the Building Envelope. The IDA is limited in width to ten (10) feet and is required to be re-vegetated, once utilities are trenched and installed, with an approved landscaping plan. Any area of the IDA shall be landscaped with native vegetation that is approved as part of a landscape plan as outlined in Article XVII, Landscaping, of this development guide, Section 2: Article XVII, Landscaping, which article sets forth standards for landscaping, shall be amended to read as follows: ARTICLE XVII LANDSCAPING 1. Landscaping shall substantially comply with the Moore Family PUD Detailed Landscaping Plan approved at Detailed Submission. 2. Grasses and wildflowers to be planted in common areas shall comply with the mix established on the Moore Family PUD Detailed Landscaping Plan. 3. Landscaping south of the Maroon Creek Flume shall be limited to the plant list set forth on Exhibit "K" attached hereto and made part hereof. .. _..., ~..,.,....,...~ ..... ~....~Y~~.... ~...~ .u~' =1. An approved landscaping plan shall be submitted with a development application, approved by the City Parks Department and the Five Trees Metropolitan Dish~ict or other authority designated by the Home Owners Association, for landscaping Page 2 of 4 proposed within the Building Envelope and Activity Envelope (refer to Article VIII, Building Setbacks). 5. Property owners shall submit a landscaping plan for approval to re-vegetate areas that are within an Interim Disturbance Area that have been impacted from the construction of utilities (refer to Article VIII, Building Setbacks). Each plan for a property must be approved by the City Parks Department and the Five Trees Metropolitan District or other authority designated by the Home Owners Association. 6. Due to site limitations, property owners may be permitted to satisfy re- vegetation or tree replacement requirements as a part of an approved landscaping plan by locating plantings in open space areas within the subdivision with the approval of both the City Parks Department and the Five Trees Metropolitan District or other authority designated by the Home Owners Association. 7. Diseased or dead trees located outside of a Building or Activity Envelope may only be replaced with the approval of the City Parks Department as the intent of prohibiting landscaping outside of designated envelopes is to maintain a natural environment. Section 3• All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 4• This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on the 16th day of June, 2009. Attest: Jackie Lothian, City Clerk LJ Erspamer, Chair Page 3 of 4 ~. Approved as to form: James R. True, Special Counsel Page 4 of 4 ~~ 8 d w ueld uol~a8111W aa~l/Bui~ueld Nt Q ~~ Z/ I c ~ R o ~ o_ oparo~o~'uads/:8Zlo~saailan~j ~~ ~$ ~ ~S ~ Co tl~ - .n ~ ~ aauapisa~ uayap =: $~ 3 ° V~ \~ ~\ ~\ v / t q3 y 2 2, E ~''~ E c dgg,e ~ rX ~ ~~ C' ~ $ E ~ ~ ~ j • i ! U g'rn vE' ~ ov a~~i- ~°H' G`v mo ~o~F ~~' ~ C' lb ~ ii~' ' i mN 4m ~l e~ n 4 ~ y v ~m '3 ~i ~ V~ V~ i ~ RS 2 v22.4+ y eea 53(3 ~m cv°~~ a°ii°-°~ Q ~"''~~.~' N i:6 iiia Siiii :~ ._. ~~ a a .i ~ ~ \ w \~ '~\ \ \ \~ \ \\\ \'\ \\ 1 ~` \ 1 \ sae c~ _ 1 ~!~:;!/~ \ '~' .r~'•'\\ ~ \ 11\ y«~' .~~\ O ,., \ 1 o m ~ ~. 111 ~~ \\ 'i.;~~:?.~\\~~~ ~\ a .c~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ q~E ~~£.~@EM I ,1111 .~. ~,.\',\~\ \` \\\ p ~ 8 g° ~ $ .~ F ~' SII I 111 ,~', \ ro ~ ~ E ~ a a 1 I 11 ":' "~: ~~\ \ \ a~ 1 ~`. @@ 1 a 1 1 ~ ~ ~.~.~~ ~~~ ~'~ ~~ ~~~ 1 1 ~ W w ~ H I SS 1 ~- ~, G P, MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: May 26, 2009 MEETING DATE: June 16, 2009 RE: 500 Doolittle Drive, City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant - Specially Planned Area Amendment, 8040 Greenline Review, and Growth Management Quota System Review APPLICANT /OWNER: Water Department, City of Aspen REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC LOCATION: Civic Address - 500 Doolittle Drive; Legal Description -Lot 25, Water Plant Affordable Housing, City of Aspen; Pazcel Identification Number - 2735- 132-04-825 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Public (PUB) zone district with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay containing the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant facility. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to remodel the main office building while adding a carport to a second building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the 8040 Greenline Review. Staff also recommends that the Commission make a recommendation fo Council to approve the request for a Specially Planned Area amendment and Growth Management Review. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the 8040 Greenline Review and to make a recommendation to Council to approve the SPA Amendment and the Growth Management Quota System Review. Revised 6/11/2009 Page 1 of 5 P2 E 0 255 5'10 1, 02D 1.530 2000 Feet BACKGROUND: The City Water Treatment Plant is located at the end of Doolittle Drive off of Castle Creek Road. Currently the facility is comprised of several buildings and ponds that comprise of the City's water treatment plant. The applicant, the City of Aspen Utilities Department, proposes to remodel the administrative building and add a roof extension to create a carport on an existing building at the facility located at 500 Doolittle Drive (See Application - Exhibit B). Please note when you review the application, you will notice that the applicant would like to expand the existing office space by 1,200 squaze feet. This issue and the relevant reviews will be explored at a later date. Staff requests that the application be bifurcated and the approvals for the additional office space will be heazd at a later date. The Water Treatment Plant SPA originally received approval by Council on July 22, 1996 by Ordinance No. 23 of Series 1996. For the proposal before the Commission at this time, three different approvals aze required. The required approvals for this proposal include .a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment, Growth Management Quota System Review, and 8040 Greenline Review. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to remodel the administrative building and a carport: Revised 6/11/2009 Page 2 of 5 Figure 1: Vicinity Map P3 • SPA Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.440.050 (A) Review Standards for a development in a Specially Planned Area. This application does not qualify for an administrative amendment. All modifications shall be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council. This proposal does qualify for Consolidated Review. In this case, the conceptual and final plans may be combined based on the limited scope of the project. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, may make a recommendation to the City Council for approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the SPA amendment. The City Council is the final authority. • Growth Management Ouota System -Essential Public Facilities pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.090 4. Any development to an essential public facility requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public heazing, to make a recommendation to the City Council for approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Growth Management Review. The City Council is the final authority. • 8040 Greenline Review for any development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level as pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030 (C) 8040 Greenline Review Standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request. SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REVIEW: The applicant proposes to remodel the entrance to the building by extending the roof over the ramps and changing the configuration of the ramps. The Community Development staff feel that the proposed remodel and the carport extension aze consistent with the intent of the approved final development plan for the Water Treatment Facilities. The changes proposed are relatively minor. The remodel to the front of the administrative building will be an improvement over the existing entrance. The accessibility ramps will be easier to use. No changes aze proposed to the floor area at this time. The existing administrative building is shown below in Figure 2: Existing Administrative Building as seen when approaching the site through the gate from Doolittle Drive. Revised 6/11/2009 Page 3 of 5 Figure 2: Existing Administrative Building P4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW: This application also requires growth management review for the new carport. The extension of the eaves of an existing building will not create any new employee generation. The carport will not be enclosed and will be used to store a crane. The carport is intended for storage purposes only. No new employees will be generated as a result. This application is required to undergo review under Growth Management because it is an addition to an essential public facility. As an Essential Public Facility, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission determine that no new employees aze generated with the addition of the carport. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW: This project was reviewed for 8040 Greenline Review during the original approvals for the Specially Planned Amendment in 1996. The Geotech Study that was prepazed at the time did not identify any hazazds azeas that would be a concern. The additions aze quite minor and will not create any adverse environmental impacts. The remodel of the facade of the administration building consists only of rearranging the access ramps and extending the roof line. The new carport will be an extension of the eaves on an existing building. The applicant will be required to provide a Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report to be approved by the City Engineer. The additional impervious azea from the eave expansion that will be created will be reviewed for the requirements for Storm Water Management when the building permit is submitted. This application meets the review standazds for 8040 Greenline Review. STAFF REFERRALS: Only a few departments provided a response to this application. This project was reviewed by the Engineering Department, the Environmental Health Department, the Pazks Department and the Fire Department. The Engineering Department found that the application did not have the information that they require for a complete review. The applicant will be required to submit a Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer when the building permit is submitted. The report must be approved by the City Engineer to meet approval conditions. The Environmental Health Department nor the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority have concerns with the remodel or the carport. They do have comments regazding the second portion of the application and the comments will be included at that time. RECOMMENDATION: While reviewing the proposal, staff believes that the application is generally minor in nature. It is consistent with the final development approval of the Water Treatment Plant. It does not substantially change the exterior of the buildings and the same materials will be used. No employees aze generated as a result of the new carport. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Council approve the Specially Planned Area Amendment and the Growth Management Review. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for 8040 Greenline Review. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to approve the proposed amendments that they may use this motion "I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 2009, approving with conditions, the recommendations for the Grow[h Management Revised 6/11/2009 Page 4 of 5 P5 Review and the Specially Planned Area amendment to Counci] and approving the requests for 8040 Greenline Review at 500 Doolittle Drive on the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant (Lot 25, Water Plant Affordable Housing)." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Staff Findings Exhibit B -Application Revised 6/11/2009 Page 5 of 5 P6 RESOLUTION N0. O ~ (SERIES OF 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND A SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT AND APPROVING 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE REMODEL AND ADDITIONS TO THE CITY OF ASPEN WATER TREATMENT PLANT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 25, WATER PLANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 500 DOOLITTLE DRIVE Parcel ID: 2735-132-04-825 WHEREAS, the Community Development Depaztment originally received an application from the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, requesting the Planning- and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Grow[h Management Review and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment and requests for approval of Special Review and 8040 Greenline Review for the minor addition and remodeling of the Water Treatment Plant. The applicant proposed to remodel the fapade and add an additional 1,200 square feet of office space to the administrative building and extend the eave of an existing building to create a carport; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested to bifurcate the application into two phases. As a result, the first phase of the application will include review for the remodel of the facade of the administrative building and the carport. The applicant requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Growth Management Review and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment and a request for approval of 8040 Greenline Review for the minor addition of the carport and remodeling of the facade of the Water Treatment Plant; and, WHEREAS, Phase 2, which consists of constructing 1,200 squaze feet of additional office space will be reviewed at a later date; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Fire Protection District, Pazks Department, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed SPA amendment, Growth Management Review, and 8040 Greenline Review and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the Public (P) Zone District with an SPA overlay and requires a amendment to make changes to the Final Development Order, pursuant to Section 26.440.090; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is located at an elevation of approximately 8,150 - 8,170 feet above sea level and is subject to 8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.020, Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and Page ] of 4 P7 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440 and 26.470 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review and Specially Planned Area amendment approvals may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.430 and 26.435 of the Land Use Code, 8040 Greenline Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, Growth Management Review and Specially Planned Area amendment review for a recommendation to Council by the Planning and Zoning commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing on June 16t°, 2009 where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, 8040 Greenline review for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public heazing and this application was reviewed at a public heazing on June 16a', 2009 where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heazd; and, WHEREAS, an application was submitted for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant, which proposed on Lot 25, a remodel of the fapade of the administrative building for accessibility and an extension of a roof eave on an existing building to create a carport. WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development application as proposed and identified as Exhibit A of the June 16'" staff memo meets the review standards for a Growth Management Review, a Specially Planned Area amendment, and 8040 Greenline Review if certain conditions are adhered to. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Growth Management Review and the Specially Planned Area Amendment Review for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and that the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the 8040 Greenline Review, subject- to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1: Growth Management Review Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Growth Management Review for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and determines that the scope of this approval: new carport and facade remodel generates zero employees. Section 2• Specially Planned Area Amendment Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the SPA amendment to remodel the fagade of the administrative building and add a carport by extending Page 2 of 4 P8 an eave on an existing building for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado with the following conditions: The applicant is required to apply for a building permit and shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. Section 3: 8040 Greenline Review Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for 8040 Greenline Review to remodel the fagade of the administrative building and add a carport by extending an eave on an existing building for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado subject to the following condition: a) A Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. On-site drainage is to be designed in accordance with the City of Aspen Engineering Design and Construction standazds. IBC Section 3307.1 requires that provisions be made to control erosion. The City requires a plan that shows the location of erosion control measures, drainage patterns, and details of erosion control structures. The plan must include notes that describe how erosion control measures will be regulazly maintained. The erosion control plan must show the location of mud racks, the location of water for washing tires and the retention of the wash water. Section 4• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a sepazate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regulaz meeting on June 16`h, 2009 by a - vote. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel LJ Erspamer, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 3 of 4 P9 Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk EXHIBIT 1: Approved Building Elevations Page 4 of 4 P10 EXHIBIT A 26.470.090 Growth Manaeement Review Standards for Development of Essential Public Facilities The development of an essential public facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning. ~d Zonine Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project. . Staff Findings: The carport and remodel are proposed to the City Water Treatment Plant City which is considered to be an essential public facility. The City Water Treatment Plant meets the water needs of the City. The carport will be used to store the city crane ' and the remodel the fay~ade will improve the use of the accessibility ramps. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate or warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. Staff Findings: No mitigation is required for Phase 1 of this application. The remodel and the carport do not create any net leasable space nor generate any new employees. Phase 2 will be reviewed at a later date. Stafff:nds this criterion to be met. P11 EXHIBIT A (Continued) In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Staff Findings: Currently, the site consists of an administrative building, storage buildings, plant buildings and ponds. The site is located beyond the Water Plant Affordable Housing and is isolated from other development by topographical features. The addition to the City Water Treatment Plant is a minor in nature relative to the size of the facilities. The additions consist of extending the roof eave on another building to create a carport to protect a crane and remodeling the front entry of the administration building. The Specially Planned Area (SPA) reflects the long term plans for the site and this proposal is consistent with the future goals. The original SPA allows for over 104,549 more square feet of buildings for this facility. The project meets the requirements for land use, height, density, architecture and landscaping. Staff feels that this proposal is compatible with the existing facilities, the intent of the SPA and the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Staff Findings: No increased impacts on the public facilities or roads are predicted. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff Findings: The parcel is suitable for development. The area where the buildings are situated is mostly level. There are no environmental constraints that would limit the construction of the carport or the facade remodel. The parcel is not located in the floodplain area or an area that is particularly steep. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public space. P12 Staff Findings: The proposed development will not have any impacts ott the view planes or adverse environmental impacts. The carport will be located under an extension of an existing eave. The remodel of the facade will be finished with exterior treatments and rooflines to match the existing buildings. Because of the nature of the topography, the new additions will not be visible from adjacent properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Findings: The remodel and the addition of the carport do not contravene any of the goals or policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Findings: The Water Department has the funds to remodel the facade and construct the carport at this time. Staffftnds this criterion to be met. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040 (B)(2). Staff Findings: There are no slopes in excess of twenty percent where the addition is to be located. The increase in density is not applicable. Stafffnds this criterion met. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Staff Findings: GMQS allotments are not required for Essential Public Facilities. Phase 1 of this application does not require any mitigation for the remodel or the carport as they do not increase net leasable space or generate new employees. This project requires growth management review. Staff finds this criterion met. P13 EXHIBIT A (continued) 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW The provisions of 8040 Greenline Review shall apply to all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level in the City of Aspen, and all deve]opment within 150 feet below, as measured horizontally, the 8040 Greenline, unless exempted pursuant to Section 26.435.030 (B). Development on land located in the R-15B Zone District is not subject to the 8040 Greenline Review. C. 8040 Greenline Review Standards. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and ava-anche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. Staff Findings: The areas for the proposed additions are suitable for development. The parcel was examined in greater detail when the Specially Planned Area was created for the entire Water Treatment facility. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical Inc. prepared a Geotech Report for the site. Environmental Audits for the site did not identify any known hazardous areas. The scope of this application does not exceed the original scope of the SPA. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution: Staff Findings: Only the extension of the eave of the existing building for the creation of the carport will result in an increase in impervious area. The applicant is required to receive approval from the City Engineer of a drainage and erosion control plan and report when the Building Permit is submitted. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Staff Findings: There are no significant effects on the City air quality as a result of this project. The Environmental Health Department indicated that the trip generation for cars will not increase for Phase 1 of this project. There will be no increase in air pollution as a result of the carport and the remodel. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff Findings: There are no proposed roads or trails with this application. The new remodel to the administrative building is compatible with the rest of the buildings and will not create adverse impacts for the neighboring properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P14 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff Findings: The project will require minimal grading. The natural land features and the landscaping will not be affected. Stafff:nds this criterion to be met. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff Findings: The placement of the existing structures will not change. The open space and mountain views will be maintained and unaltered. Stafff:nds this criterion to be met. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff Findings: The buildings for this facility are located in a low spot that is not visible from the surrounding properties. The height of the remodel will not be greater than the rest of the administrative building. The extension of the roof eave to create the carport will be much lower than the existing building as well. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Findings: No additional utilities are required for the project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff Findings: The existing road, Doolittle Drive is adequate for the current and for the proposed changes to the facility. Stajffinds this criterion to be met. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff Findings: The current access to the development meets the requirements for fire protection and snow removal. There are no proposed plans to alter the access at this time. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical Staff Findings: This project is not applicable to the recommendations of the Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails. Staff finds this criterion to be met.