Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.1080 Power Plant Rd.A16-94 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED:02 /23/94 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 2735-123-00-001 A16-94 PROJECT NAME: Aspen Citv Shop Amendment toMApprovedLDevelopment Project Address. 1080 Power Plant Road Legal Address: APPLICANT: City of Aspen Applicant Address. REPRESENTATIVE: Alan Richman Representative Address/Phone: Box 3613 920-1125 Aspen, CO 81612 FEES: PLANNING $ # APPS RECEIVED 1 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED 1 HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ G-if Cpruro fi~yl~!~ OO. TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: X 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 DRC Meeting Date ___________________ REFERRALS: _____________________ ___________________ City Attorney City Engineer Parks Dept. Bl School District Housing Dir. dg Inspector Fire Marshal Rocky Mtn NatGas Aspen Water City Electric Holy Cross CDOT Clean Air Board Envir.Hlth. Mtn. Bell ACSD Open Space Board Zoning Energy Center Other Other DATE REFERRED: _ - INITIALS: DUE: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: ~i a INITIAL: City Atty City Engineer -Zoning -Env. Health Housing Open Space Other• FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: MEMORANDUM TO: Diane Moore, City Planning Director FROM: Mary Lackner, Planner RE: City Shop Stream Margin Review and PUD Amendment DATE: February 28, 1994 REQUEST: The applicant, the City of Aspen, is proposing several amendments to the City Shop Stream Margin and PUD approvals which were granted by City Council pursuant to Ordinance 32, Series of 1993. Specifically, the applicant has redesigned three portions of the new structure to reduce costs of the building. DISCUSSION: On February 18, 1994 at noon, Jack Reid, Cris Caruso, and Scott Smith (representing the applicant) held a neighborhood meeting at the City Shop trailer to discuss the changes to the project. Five of the neighbors were represented at this meeting, including Paula Lout who is the closest neighbor. The general feeling of the neighbors was that the redesign of the shape of the building (and specifically the side wall) is acceptable. The primary concern was that they do not want to see construction activities slowed down and would like to see it proceed in a timely manner. The building changes are described as follows: 1. A 60' long section of the side wall of the Maintenance Shop Building along Castle Creek has been altered, to create a straight wall where previously a "notched" footprint had been approved. 2. Other changes to the Maintenance Shop Building include the removal of a 14' by 50' area at the rear of the building, and the addition of an area of 12' by 12'. 3. A 100' long section of the wall at the rear of the covered storage building has been reduced by about 6', which significantly reduces the cut into the hillside behind the wall. 4. A total reduction in square footage of 1,875 sq.ft. These changes are illustrated on the attached map. Exemption from Stream Margin Review Section 7-504 (B) permits the Planning Director to approve a Stream Margin Review Amendment which meets the following standards: i. The development does not add more than ten (l0) percent to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the amount of building area exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty-five (25) percent; Response: The project's floor area has been reduced by about 1,875 sq.ft. or 10% of the total project. 2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 13-76 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said subsection; Response: No trees will be removed or impacted by the proposed changes. 3. The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will be any closer to the high water line than is the existing development; Response: The 100 year floodplain for this portion of Castle Creek coincides with the top of the streambank. No portion of the revised footprint is any closer to the top of the bank than was permitted in the original approval. Instead, a larger section of the wall is at the same distance from the high water line as was originally approved. 4. The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope, if one has been designated through a prior review; Response: No building envelope was designated through the original stream margin review. 5. The development is located completely outside of the special flood hazard area and more than one hundred (100) feet measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or the expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the amount of ground coverage of structures within the special flood hazard area. Response: A majority of the city shop parcel and the previously approved development lies within 10o feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. The proposed changes to the building will reduce ground coverage by approximately 1,150 sq.ft. This represents a 3% reduction in total site coverage of this project. Insubstantial Amendment to Approved PUD Section 7-907 of the Municipal Code requires that "An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to technical or engineering 2 considerations first discovered during actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated during the approval process." The need for this amendment became apparent as a result of a value engineering review conducted prior to project construction, which determined how to bring the project's cost within the City's budget. 1. The amendment shall not change the use or character of the development. Response: The use and character are not changing. 2. The amendment shall not increase the overall coverage of structures on the land by greater than three (3) percent. Response: The amendment will decrease ground coverage by about three percent. 3. The amendment shall not substantially increase trip generation rates or demand for public facilities. Response: The amendment will have no affect on trip generation rates or demand for public facilities. 4. The amendment shall not reduce approved open space by greater than three (3) percent. Response: The amendment will increase approved open space from 14.5% to 16.7%. 5. The amendment shall not reduce off-street parking and loading space by greater than one (1) percent. Response: The amendment will have not affect on off-street parking and loading space. 6. The amendment shall not reduce required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements. Response: This amendment does not change pavements widths or rights-of-way. 7. The amendment shall not increase the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings by greater than two (2) percent. Response: There is no commercial floor area in this project. The square footage of the project is being reduced by ten percent. 8. The amendment shall not increase the approved residential density by greater than one (1) percent. 3 _,~ ~.. Response: There is no residential floor area in this project. 9. The amendment shall not be inconsistent with a condition or representation made in the project's original review or require a further variation from the project's approved dimensional requirements. Response: The amendment does not change any condition or representation made in the project's original review. It does not require any further variation from the project's approved dimensional requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has determined that the applicant meets the requirements for Stream Margin Exemption and Amendment of a PUD Order. Therefore, staff recommends that the City Planning Director approve the applicant's request, subject to the following condition: 1. The applicant shall submit a revised PUD Plat which identifies a building envelope on the property, prior to sign-off by the Zoning Officer on the change order. APPROVED: „~ V l/" - Diane Moore, City Planning Director 4 -~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ .~ ~ 1 ~ ` ~ , ~ o -~ ~ / _ ~ ~ ` l ~~ ~ ~_ ~~~ : ~ ~ iG \ ~l ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~~~ \ ~~ ~ ~~~~ NAN~~ SWOP ~ ti ~ ~ '< 1 11 ~ MArN~~, ~~ I' Q ~ ~ ~~ ~ ` Fro ~~ \a~ '~ it I ~ 1~ ~ ~' ~~~` .\ ~ ~ ~ ~. , 1 ti `k ., ~ ~ ~ ti J 1 ~ 2 . ~ •\ ~ ''~ (`~~.~( ~ ors , A 3 4 ~ ' ANC. A~xa^+ -v- y ~ .. ~ _ a0 ~ ~ __ _ - oN ~' TRA~ Pfwi ^l ~' ' ~ ~ - 1 ~ ~~ P' 8 ,; ~ ~ ~ i + a~,.j.U,~ ~w ~ u. is o ~ %~;~ ~ j , ~~~p ~ ~ ~'~ ~ = sd `~I ~ ~ ~ prtAiN ` 3Z v'~ ~ ~ri 1Q ~ L app' tr, ~ /NI.~~ ~ , HG ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ C1 ~ ~j 1 i r I ~ .., -+-~ ~Jw?i41 rJA (~- W R t3 . , ~ ~.~ '-1a 'M I .T Q .~71VW'~ ~ ~I 21 ,~ ~`f°A`l~ tGV~T~°NS * C ~t,D, `~" DNS ~i Q~r ;; 'P ~' 7~ ~ ~ ' l~R E of ~~,c. -) ~ YAr..~y P ~ O ~ ° i ~ ~P 2M / !`1 7fJ? IL 'TU D r r ~ ~3~ ~ ~ , 1~ 3 ,, 1 l ~ ~ ,_.. _~ ; I `~ lI ~'~ t 3 __ ~ r -I/ 1 2 N T i 5, ~ 1 ~i ~ ~ ~ ' ~i I ' ~ l ~ ~.~~,~ pAR-~iNG ~~Y,~' I J ~. 1 1 ~ ~ \ ' ~ pqy GH"f ~ ;~ r 1 _ 1 ~ 1,.x,1 c( ~ ~ I (1~ '7 j . ' \ ~ ~ 1! °. r c! 1 \ ~jZ. o •r ~ ~. ~ u, 1 ~ ~. 235 2 W ~ '8 1 1 p~ s7'v1~ 8~~% `"~"~'~73 0 ~ I e ~ ' ' / 1 ` 1 ` ''~ v coNC+e ~ I ~ I ~ p L / 1 1 ~ ` 2g , f 4 ~ ~ ~' 110 ' Q • S ~ I \, ~ _ _ - AREA _ _ ~~ ~ ; / ~ ~ `~ 2 __ _ ~ ,, / n ~ '. ,TL~ C~ EE ( I ~ ~ ~~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ L - ~ 1''~~ 1~CCI~N~ $ez 3613, r¢a~ury (~slscarls,. X161 P February 22, 1994 Ms. Mary Lackner, Planner Aspen/Pitkin County Planning Office 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 RE: ABPEN CITY BHOP - Dear Mary, This letter constitutes approval of an amendment to Development Application. Plant Road. The applicant ~l~~rtrrq. Saruteea • l3o3I 92o-11ts TO APPROVED DEVELOPMENT an application for Planning Director the previously approved Aspen City Shop The property is located at 1080 Power is the City of Aspen Streets Department. A letter has previously been provided to the Planning Office by the City Attorney and City Manager demonstrating that the City owns the subject property. That letter (a copy of which is attached hereto) also authorizes Alan Richman Planning Services to represent the City in obtaining all governmental approvals necessary for the renovation and rehabilitation of the City Shop. The prior history of this project is as follows. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing on May 4, 1993 concerning the renovation of the City Shop Building, replacement of the storage shed, and construction of a new maintenance shop and administrative building. At the conclusion of the hearing, the P&Z granted the project conditional use, stream margin and special review approval for parking and recommended approval, with conditions, of the Final PUD Plan and GMQS exemption for an essential public facility. The City Council granted Final PUD approval and GMQS exemption to the project on June 14, 1993, via Ordinance 32, Series of 1993. The PUD Agreement and PUD Plan for the project have been placed of record, and may be found at Book 722, Pages 586 et seq., and Book 32, Pages 47-55, respectively. Subsequent to obtaining final approval, construction documents for the project were drawn up, and bids for its construction were obtained. These bids came in above the City's budget. Therefore, a value engineering review was conducted, to determine how the project's cost could be reduced without changing any of the fundamental representations which were made in obtaining the original approval. Ms. Mary Lackner February 22, 1994 Page 2 Based on the recommendations of the value engineering review, certain modifications have been made to the approved building footprint. These changes, which are all illustrated on the attached drawing, can be described as follows: 1. A 60' long section of the wall of the Maintenance Shop Building along Castle Creek has been altered, to create a straight wall where previously a "notched" footprint had been approved. 2. Other changes to the Maintenance Shop Building include the removal of a 14' by 50' area at the rear of the building, and the addition of an area of 12' by 12'. 3. A 100' long section of the wall at the rear of the covered storage building has been moved in by about 6', significantly reducing the cut into the hillside behind the wall. This change alone has removed approximately 1,000 square feet of floor area from the project. All told, the net reduction in the project's floor area is about 1,875 square feet. Following is a summary of the approved and proposed sizes of each of the four buildings in the project. Building Approved Proposed Floor Area Floor Area Historic Shop 5,171 s.f. 5,171 s.f Storage Shed 3,480 s.f. 1,885 s.f Maintenance Shop 8,245 s.f. 7,967 s.f Administration 1,920 s.f. 1,920 s.f Total Project 18,816 s.f. 16,943 s.f Overall, the building coverage on the site has decreased from 16,769 s.f (31~ of the site) to 15,625 s.f (28$ of the site). Correspondingly, open space on the site has increased from 7,828 s.f. (14.5$ of the site) to 9,009 s.f (16.7$ of the site). At a pre-application meeting held on February 7, 1994, it was determined that applications amending the Conditional Use, Stream Margin and PUD approvals needed to be submitted. It was also recommended that the applicant hold a meeting with neighbors prior to submitting the application, to determine whether there would be any public concerns from these revisions. That meeting was held on February 18 and was attended by several neighbors. The comments received at the meeting have been incorporated in this application. Following below are responses to the applicable criteria from the Municipal Code for each of the necessary review procedures. Ms. Mary Lackner February 22, 1994 Page 3 insubstantial Amendment to Approved Conditional Use Section 24-7-308 of the Municipal Code establishes the following criteria for an insubstantial amendment to an approved Conditional Use: 1. The change will not cause negative impacts on pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation, parking or noise. Response: The insubstantial change to the building footprints will not cause negative impacts on traffic circulation, parking or noise. A comment made at the neighborhood meeting was that the revised design for the wall would be an improvement over the original proposal, by further blocking noise transmission to neighbors across Castle Creek. 2. The change will not substantially affect the tourist or local orientation of the conditional use. Response: The proposal revisions do not in any way alter the fundamental use of the site for the City Shop. 3. The change will not affect the character of the neighborhood in which the use is located. Response: As was demonstrated in the original review, the approved renovation and expansion of the City Shop will reduce many of the impacts of a City operation which first began in the 1950's. The insubstantial change to the approved building footprints will only affect the character of the neighborhood in a positive manner as compared to the original approval. As demonstrated herein, the project's size (in terms of floor area and site coverage) has been reduced, its open space has been increased, and the hillside cut has been lessened, all of which benefit the neighborhood. 4. The change will not increase the use's employee base or the retail square footage in the structure. Response: The number of employees working at the Shop will not be affected by this insubstantial change to the building footprints. There is no retail square footage involved in this project. 5. The change will not substantially alter the external visual appearance of the building or its site. Response: The external visual appearance of the building and its site will be altered in an insubstantial manner. The approved cut into the hillside has been substantially reduced, while the wall along Castle Creek has been straightened, but not lengthened. Ms. Mary .Lackner February 22, 1994 Page 4 Exemption from Stream Margin Review Section 24-7-504 B of the Municipal Code establishes the following criteria for an exemption from Stream Margin Review: 1. The development does not add more than ten (10) percent to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the amount of building area exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty-five (25) percent. Responae: The project's floor area has been reduced by about 10$. 2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be required pursuant to Section 13-76 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said subsection. Response: No trees will be removed as a result of this proposal. 3. The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will be any closer to the high water line than is the existing development. Response: As was demonstrated during the original approval, the 100 year floodplain for this portion of Castle Creek coincides with the top of the stream bank. No portion of the revised footprint is any closer to the top of the stream bank than was permitted in the original approval. Instead, a larger section of the wall is at the same distance from the high water line as was originally approved. 4. The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope, if one has been designated through a prior review. Response: A building envelope was not designated during the prior review. Instead, an actual building footprint was designated. If the purpose of a building footprint is to establish setbacks from property lines and natural features, then all of the proposed changes fall within these setbacks and do not extend outside of what would have been the project's building envelope. 5. The development is located completely outside of the special flood hazard area and more than one hundred (100) feet measured horizontally from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or the expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the amount of ground coverage of structures within the special flood hazard area. Response: The amount of ground coverage within the site has been reduced by almost 1,150 square feet, from 16,769 square feet (31$ of the site) to 15,525 square feet (28~ of the site). Ms. Mary Lackner February 22, 1994 Page 5 insubstantial Amendment to Approved POD Section 24-7-907 A of the Municipal Code requires that "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 need for this amendment only became apparent as a result of the value engineering review conducted prior to project construction, which determined how to bring the project's cost within the City's budget. The proposal complies with the standards for an insubstantial PUD amendment as follows: 1. The amendment shall not change the use or character of the development. Response: The amendment will have no effect on the use or character of the development. 2. The amendment shall not increase the overall coverage of structures on the land by greater than three (3) percent. Response: The amendment will decrease the overall coverage of structures on the ground from 31$ to 28$. 3. The amendment shall not substantially increase trip generation rates or demand for public facilities. Response: The amendment will have no affect on trip generation or demand for public facilities. 4. The amendment shall not reduce approved open space by greater than three (3) percent. Response: The amendment will increase approved open space from 14.5$ to 16.7$. 5. The amendment shall not reduce off-street parking and loading space by greater than one (1) percent. Response: The amendment leaves the number of off-street parking spaces and the area for loading unchanged. 6. The amendment shall not reduce required pavement widths or rights-of-way for streets and easements. Response: The amendment leaves required pavement widths and street and easement rights-of-way unchanged. ,~. Ms. Mary Lackner February 22, 1994 Page 6 The amendment shall not increase the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings by greater than two (2) percent. Reapoase: There is no commercial floor area in this project. 8. The amendment shall not increase the approved residential density by greater than one (1) percent. Response: There are no residential units involved in this proposal. 9. The amendment shall not be inconsistent with a condition or representation made in the project's original review or require a further variation from the project's approved dimensional requirements to be granted. Response: The amendment does not change any condition or representation made in the project's original review. It does not require a further variation from the project's approved dimensional requirements to be granted. Conclusion Within this letter, the applicant has responded to all applicable criteria of the Aspen Municipal Code, pursuant to direction given during a pre-application meeting. We have demonstrated that the project complies with said criteria. We have also demonstrated that the project has no adverse impacts and that instead, it results in a smaller development in terms of floor area and site coverage, having more open space. We believe no public purpose would be served by requiring review of this project by the P&Z, since it meets all eligibility criteria for staff approval. Should you determine that additional detail is necessary, we would appreciate it if such requests could be brought to our attention as soon as the deficiency is identified, allowing us to respond as quickly as possible and to avoid unnecessary delays, which could preclude the timely completion of this project's construction. Thank you for your considerable assistance while the application was being prepared and for your continuing attention to this project during its staff review. Very truly yours, ALAN RICHMAN PLANNING SERVICEB Ala c~, AICP ... Exhibit B CITY OF ASPEN City Attorney's Office 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5055 MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont FROM: John P. Worceste~'~~~ Amy Margerum ~ YY DATE: March 5, 1993 RE: City Shop Renovation This is to document that the City Shop scheduled for renovation and rehabilitation is located on land owned by the City of Aspen. This is to further document the fact that Alan Richman is authorized to represent the City of Aspen in obtaining all governmental approvals necessary for the renovation and rehabilitation of the City Shop. memo.frtn FEB 15 '94 05~52PM GIB5~p4 & RENO '~"~ P.1 \„/ '~w/ OAVCf. 6~9a. MA GI[3$C3N 6. RENO] • ARCHITECTS a rae~.~,.x+ eccarrr c s'nrrn •~A Pebruary 15, 1994 AS CITY S130P PROLECT REVIBW We are having a project update and "mid-point" rcview meeting with any interested neighbors tatives Exam Gibson 8c Reno Architects and an Friday, Febmaty 18, 1994. at 12 noon. Represen ~ ress ~ ~~ ~ ~~• the City of Aspen will be on hand to discuss tl~ projec pro8 y 4~ We will meet at the site in the trailer at the South aide of the Castle Creek Bridge (tcmpoxary office of the Aspen Streets pepartmertt}. We will iaok forward to seeing you there. Please call if you have any questions. 5incereiy, tt ~A ProeCt At,ehite~t -~~~ ~~Sy ~~, s+-a~~o~ ~aci~ ~.e~d e r%s c ~~b dob C~,.p - coax ~t ~~ ,~,.~~~ - vw c~Mp ta~-~ . I' ~^~•l ~6v~ post-1[" FYix Note T871 D~ ~ .- °~es~ coloepa. ~. p~eY Y Plrone Y FeY Y ~ -[/ P•• Y 49 B 6. CoaPeR A46NU6 • ASPEN, COLOPA~ B1 F31 1 3p9!826.5068 ' FAX 6-5893