HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.gm.City of Aspen Parks/Golf Maintenance.A16-90City of Aspen Parks/Golf
Maintenance Facility GMQS Exemp.
A16-90
i
r-
0
0
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 3 5 90
DATE COMPLETE: ti t1 �
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
,2735-6.?q-09 A16-90
STAFF MEMBER:
PROJECT NAME: City of Aspen Parks/Golf Maintenance Facility GMOS
Exemption, Conditional Use Amendment, PUD Amendment
Project Address: Cemetary Lane
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: City of Aspen , Rich Coulombe, Golf Course Super.
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn, Davis Horn Inc.
Representative Address/Phone: 300 E. Hyman Ave.
Aspen, CO 81611 5-6587
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: $1,835. NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 3
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date ///JPUBLIC HEARING",�ES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES ENO
f \�
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES '�O
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
REFERRALS:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Dir.
Aspen Water
City Electric
Envir. Hlth.
Aspen Consol.
S.D.
Mtn. Bell
Parks Dept.
Holy Cross
Fire Marshall
Building Inspector
Roaring Fork
Energy Center
DATE REFERRED: '3 / / �' l
INITIALS:
School District
Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
State Hwy Dept(GW)
State Hwy Dept(GJ)
Other
-----------------------------=______-- -
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 1 1-=) W INITIALS
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
SUMMARY CLOSE-OUT FOR
CITY OF ASPEN AMENDMENT TO THE PUD
FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY
May 29, 1990 the Council adopted Resolution #25 approving the
expansion of the maintenance facility. Several exhibits shall be
attached to the Resolution to ensure that the representation and
conditions of the approval are complied with.
0 0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manage
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning DirectoA\
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Golf Course PUD Amendment/Resolution')
DATE: May 29, 1990
SUMMARY: The applicant's have requested an amendment to the PUD
to expand the golf maintenance facility. This is not an
insubstantial amendment therefore requiring a two step review
process. The applicant also requests a GMQS Exemption for an
Essential Public Service which is reviewed by the Council.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this
amendment.
Because this is City owned land it is unnecessary to approved the
PUD Amendment by Ordinance. Therefore staff has prepared a
Resolution which is attached for your review, Resolution<_-�5 ,
attachment A.
COUNCIL GOALS: This application is consistent with Council's
goal #9: to maintain, renovate, reconstruct and manage the
capital assets of the City.
BACKGROUND: In 1986 an application was submitted for a 9,000
square foot expansion. The applicant's withdrew their request
after a controversial public hearing at the Planning Commission.
As a result of the application being withdrawn and the need for a
more functional facility, the Planning Department initiated a
study addressing existing maintenance needs, long range needs,
locational/functional parameters and potential sites. The report
"Comparative Evaluation of Maintenance Facility Sites - Combined
and Shared", is attached to the April 17 Commission memo,
attachment C.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION: The Golf and Parks Department has requested
an amendment to the PUD to construct a 2,160 square foot addition
on to the existing 2,000 square foot golf/park maintenance
facility located at the northwest corner of Cemetery Lane. The
facility shall not exceed 11.5 feet in height.
The facility is utilized on a year round basis reaching peak use
in the summer season when 40 parks and Golf Department employees
and 60 pieces of machinery operate out of the building. The
facility is also used for mechanical repair and chemical storage.
The existing entryway to the yard is only 12 feet wide and is
proposed to be increased to 30 feet wide.
PUD AMENDMENT: Section 7-903 outlines the review standards for
an amendment to the PUD. For a review of the PUD review
standards please refer to the April 17 Commission memo page 6
Section E, attachment C.
GMQS EXEMPTION: The applicant has also requested an exemption
from GMQS for the construction of an essential public service.
Pursuant to Section 8-104 C(1)(b) development shall be considered
an essential public facility if it serves an essential public
purpose, provides facilities in response to the demands of
growth, is not itself a growth generator, is available for use by
the general public, and serves the needs of the City. It shall
also be taken into consideration whether the development is a
not -for -profit venture. This exemption shall not be applied to
commercial or lodge development.
RESPONSE: The expansion of the facility is in response to the
growth of the golf course and the increased demands on the Parks
and Golf Department for maintenance of public facilities. The
Parks Department has also taken over nordic and summer trail
maintenance. The facility is a not -for -profit venture that
directly benefits the public facilities used by residents and
visitors.
In addition, the applicant shall demonstrate that the impacts of
the essential public facility will be mitigated, including those
associated with the generation of additional employees, the
demand for parking, toad and transit services, and the need for
basic services including but not limited to water supply, sewage
treatment, drainage control, fire and police protection, and
solid waste disposal. It shall also be demonstrated that the
proposed development has a negligible adverse impacts on the
City's air, water, land and energy resources, and is visually
compatible with surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: The propose of the addition is to increase the
efficiency of the existing operation. The function of the
facility will not change and no new employees will be added. The
primary concerns of the past have been the visual impact of the
expansion. As will be demonstrated during the presentation, the
expansion will be screened .by the landforms and landscaping
surrounding the site.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION VOTE: 5 For 0 Against
KEY ISSUES: At their April 17 meeting, the Commission
approved the conditional use (park maintenance building is a
conditional use in the Park zone) but tabled review of the
r.
E
Ll
amendment until the applicant's could identify a program for
storage of equipment and provide a detailed map of the whole
area.
1. Many residents of the community spoke in favor of the
expanded facility. Other residents, including the only adjacent
homeowner, were resistant to the expansion because of the
existing condition of the facility and surrounding land.
Historically, the facility has been too small for the amount of
equipment stored on the site. There were complaints that private
cars were being stored on site, heavy machinery was stored in
full view of the adjacent property owner and the 5th tee.
2. In response to the neighbors complaints, the Commission
directed the applicant's to prepare a survey of equipment and
identify a program for storage and equipment use.
3. The applicant's prepared a map of the site identifying the
specific uses of the whole Park maintenance/office site. The
applicant also responded by eliminating unused equipment from the
site and prepared a program plan that specifically identifies the
equipment to be stored in the new building. That program plan
has been attached as Exhibit A of the Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends
approval of the PUD Amendment with the following conditions:
1. The applicant needs to submit a plat which depicts the
applicable information required by Section 7-1004 (D) (1) (a) (3)
and (D) (2) (a).
2. The applicant shall comply with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Colorado Visibility Standards and shall
install compact fluorescent lights which reduce air pollution.
3. The applicant will need to apply for a fugitive dust control
plan approximately 6 weeks before construction.
4. The applicant shall be required to pave the access
road/driveway to minimize dust from the traffic into and out of
the maintenance buildings. The parking/storage area in the back
of the current building should also be paved when funding can be
approved.
5. The applicant shall design noise reduction into the
storage/maintenance facility as a responsibility to the
neighbors.
6. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
new addition, the plantings on the existing berm shall be
reinforced and the relocated berm replanted.
7. Based upon the recommendation of the CIRSA, prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the existing building
•
shall be inspected to ensure the stability of the structure.
8. A GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Services shall be
approved before final approval of this project.
9. A block wall shall be included in the construction of the
addition between the fertilizer storage and garage areas.
10. Approval of conditional use is dependent upon subsequent
approval of review and approval of the PUD amendment.
11. This proposal shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission after 1 year of operation.
12. The building shall be located as shown on plans and recorded
on the amended plat.
13. The maximum height of the addition shall be 11.5 feet.
14. The maximum size of the addition shall be 2,160 for a total
of 4,160. This cannot be altered without an amendment to the
PUD.
15. The on and off site storage of Park and Golf equipment shall
be consistent with Exhibit A of the Resolution: Parks and Golf
Operations plan as submitted and accepted at the May 8, 1990
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Staff recommends approval of the GMQS Exemption.
PROPOSED NOTION: I move to approve the PUD Amendment and GMQS
Exemption for the expansion of the Golf Maintenance facility.
Move to approve Resolution.-.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Goy Gam.',
Attachments:
A. Resolution, with Exhibit A
B. May 8, 1990 Planning Commission memo
C. April 17, 1990 Planning Commission memo
4
• 0
ATTACILMENT A
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 1990)
A RESOLUTION OF TILE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL GRANTING A PUD AMENDMENT
AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR TILE EXPANSION OF THE GOLF MAINTENANCE
FACILITY LOCATED ON THE CITY OF ASPEN GOLF COURSE/PUD.
WHEREAS, the
Golf and
Parks Department,
as represented
by
Davis Horn Inc.,
submitted
an application for
an amendment
to the
PUD;
WHEREAS, the applicants also requested a conditional use
review for the expansion of the maintenance facility in the Park
Zone and a GMQS Exemption for the construction of Essential
Public Facilities for the 2,160 square foot addition; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") on
April 17, 1990 to consider the application for PUD Amendment and
conditional use review, at which time the Commission reviewed the
application; and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations and
commitments made by the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Commission approved the conditional use and
tabled review of the PUD amendment until such time that the
applicants could provide a comprehensive map of the site and a
program plan identifying a more efficient use of the site in a
manner that addresses the concerns of adjacent neighbors; and
WHEREAS, at a duly noticed Public Hearing held by the
Commission, May 8, 1990, the applicant's presented a program plan
and comprehensive map of the site; and
WHEREAS, the Commission considered the representations made
by the applicants and amended the conditions of approval and
recommend to Council approval of the PUD Amendment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO that is does, having considered the
Commission's recommendation, hereby grant approval for an
amendment to the Final PUD with the following conditions:
i. The applicant needs to submit a plat which depicts the
applicable information required by Section 7-1004 (D) (1) (a) (3)
and (D) (2) (a).
2. The applicant shall comply with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Colorado Visibility Standards and shall
install compact fluorescent lights which reduce air pollution.
3. The applicant will need to apply for a fugitive dust control
plan approximately 6 weeks before construction.
4. The applicant shall be required to pave the access
road/driveway to minimize dust from the traffic into and out of
the maintenance buildings. The parking/storage area in the back
of the current building should also be paved when funding can be
approved.
5. The applicant shall design noise reduction into the
storage/maintena.nce facility as a responsibility to the
neighbors.
6. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the
new addition, the plantings on the existing berm shall be
reinforced and the relocated berm replanted.
7. Based upon the recommendation of the CIRSA, prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the existing building
shall be inspected to ensure the stability of the structure.
8. A GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Services shall be
approved before final approval of this project.
9. A block wall shall be included in the construction of the
addition between the fertilizer storage and garage areas.
10. Approval of conditional use is dependent upon subsequent
approval of review and approval of the PUD amendment.
11. This proposal shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission after 1 year of operation.
12. The building shall be located as shown on plans and recorded
on the amended plat.
13. The maximum height of the addition shall be 11.5 feet.
14. The maximum size of the addition shall be 2,160 for a total
of 4,160. This cannot be altered without an amendment to the PUD.
15. The on and off site storage of Park and Golf equipment shall
be consistent with Exhibit A of Resolution Parks and Golf
Operations plan as submitted and accepted at the May 8, 1990
Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Council that it does hereby
grant GMQS Exemption for the construction of the addition to the
golf maintenance facility.
William L. Stirling, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do
certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate cop; of that
resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado at a meeting held , 1990.
nQk-Ai.L Y 11 V t-I1, l--LL.y
3
EXHIBIT A
PARKS AND GOLF OPERAT10N5
tSummer and Winter)
Tne bask F;ar:;any scnerne for the Parks a^d Golf operations are divideC into 5 ma
areas. There are 31Sc = support sites usec for storage of equipment and
m�scellaneo:a suD�l,es. i am divining the operation by seasons so you can see
summer and w;ntEr o; erations. There will be no more parking of equipment
allowed adjacent to the = 15 ladies tee box and there rre no personal vel�iclPs left
Plac
on s;:e at the er=C c.; ti)e Gay. Auction items have been rioveC to the Truscott e
soil storage area along with other miscellaneous '.:ems.
summer
Area 1 - This, area is locateC in the yard adjacent to t`ie building. Tt:is area :s
used in the summer by Dotn Par?;s and Golf. It will hold both Parks and Golf
equipment Gs fo.l•^.•w:. and are used Bally:
r �
Steiner -at:tor� (�)
Diahatsu WOM Carts (2)
Cushman Spray Rig
Bobcat Loaders (2 shared)
Turf C7i"'^,ve^r (snared)
JrG:•Vely is d�lGJ (2)
r; 21f.
Li -i00 Mowers (2)
F-1 0 Mov.,er
Hahn Spray Rig
Jake Tractor,(shared)
is locate just above ne yard ;,nG will be user, or nieavy
follow- an. c are usec on a non-:req;;ent bass:
,ni:
DumIn T ruc:" ("snare�)
EXHIBIT Al
Are 3 - This, area is locateC across Iron; Area 2 and 1s useC prlmartly to- Golf
equipment as follovrs and are used on a daily basin
,nlf
Cushmans (3 shared)
P-�ational f ,owers (2 shareC)
Aerifier (shared)
UV-4 Dump Cart (shared)
Fertilizer Spreader (shared)
Dirt Spreader (shared)
Turf Cat dower (shared)
Diahatsu
Area 4 - This area is located 2cresJ office building anC IS used daily for
employer par ling (13 Slots).
Area S - This area is lot, ateC Cirectly it,; front, of the o; ;ice building and is used
daily for city vehicles, employee and business parking (20 slots).
winter
Area 1 - 100010 Pari:s equipment. Snov,, removal equipment and piston bully for
Nordic Trai is maintenance used daily
�_
St2,ner Tr aCtors (;)
Dcbcats (2)
City Vehicles (5)
Area 2 - Same as summer.
Area-
r
EXHIBIT A2
Area I - Sadie as su,mi mer. .
Area 5 - Same as summer.
Sunort Site
Site Marolt Lean -To: Winter storage of Parks and Golf equipment and summer
storage of 2 piston bullies, snowmobile and miscellaneous materials.
51te 2 City Shops: Miscellaneous supplies for Parks and Golf (paper products,
fertilizer, seed, and misc. Golf furniture).
Site 3 Truscott Place Soils Storage Are?,: Miscellaneous materials and various
soil piles. ,afinter storage of Recreation Dept. vans and other Parks and Golf
miscellaneous equipment and tr2il2"..
Site 4 Cart Barn: V, inter storage of Golff'60 0) and Parks (20 �) equipment. This -
Darn is completely filled with equipment In the winter.
LJ '--J
jU o
EXHIBIT A3Lju�
1
v�EA� Rjy 0 D \t``\
I F .'s NWT
1/ll�(Ll 1
z.
1
'Y
11 I
•
•
ATTACHMENT E
MEMORANDUM,
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Golf Course PUD Amendment
DATE: I,ay 8, 1990
SU2rIIikR.Y: The Commission tabled the review of the PUD amendment
at the April 17 meeting.
The Commission did approve the Conditional Use fc a golf
maintenance facility but requested the applicant to rc :urn with
information that would present a broader picture of the site and
the variety of uses that occur on that site.
I have attached a Parks and Golf Operations schedule ind a map
showing the overall site and the locati,_:; of various :acilities
on the site.
To facilitate your review, I have also attached the April 17
memo.
At this meeting the Commission shall review the amendmc.it to the
golf course PUD Development Plan.
RECOMYLENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission-ecommend
approval of the amendment to the PUD for the go E course
maintenance facility with the following conditions as mended at
the April 17 Commission meeting:
1. The applicant needs to submit a plat which de icts the
applicable information required by Section 7-1004 (D) (:) (a) (3)
and (D) (2) (a).
2. The applicant shall comply with the National Ar )ient Air
Quality Standards and Colorado visibility Standards end shall
install compact fluorescent lights which reduce air pol:ation.
3. The applicant will need to apply for a fugitive du::. control
plan approximately 6 weeks before construction.
4. The applicant shall be required to pave t1s access
road/driveway to minimize dust from the traffic into tid out of
the maintenance buildings. The parking/storage area i) the back
of the current building should also be paved when fund:.ig can be
approved.
5. The applicant shall design noise reduction into the
storage/maintenance facility as a responsibilitj to the
•
neighbors.
6. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupant • for the
new addition, the plantings on the existing berm shall be
reinforced and the relocated berm replanted.
7. Based upon the recommendation of the CIRSA, pri r to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the existinc building
shall be inspected to ensure the stability of the strut- are.
8. A GT9pS Exemption for Essential Public Services shall be
approved before final approval of this project.
9. A bloc): wall shall be included in the constructs n of the
addition between the fertilizer storage and garage area:.
10. Approval of conditional use is dependent upon :ubsequent
approval of review and approval of the PUD amendment.
11. This proposal shall be reviewed by the Planning i :id zoning
Commission after 1 year of operation. r
12. The building shall be located as shown on plans an( recorded
on the amended plat.
13. The maximum height of the addition shall be 11.5 f(at.
14. The maximum size of the addition shall be 2,160 fl_ a total
of 4,160. This cannot be alterec without an amendme .t to the
PUD.
2
ATTAC'H2MENT C
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning
RE: Parks/Golf Course 1•;aintenance and Str:rage Facility/
Conditional Use, GMQS Exemption, and PUD Amen rent
DATE: April 17, 1990
SUMMARY: The Parks and Golf Department wish to e>:r .nd their
maintenance facilities. The addition will be 2,160 s( iare feet
attached to the existing maintenance and storage fac 1ity. A
storage and maintenance facility is a conditional use i' the Park
(P) zone. There is an approved PUD development plarn and this
addition represents an amendment to the PUD thus requiring a two
step amendment process. This is the first step of the two step
process. Both the conditional use and the first step the PUD
amendment require a public hearing.
The applicants also request a GN,QS Exemption for the co:3truction
of an essential community service which is reviewed at 1:)uncil.
APPLICANT: Golf and Parks Department, represented by lavis Horn
Incorporated
LOCATION: Northwest corner of Cemetery Lane and Stag Highway
82.
ZONING: Park/PUD
APPLICANTS REQUEST: Amendment to the PUD and Cond tion-- Use for
the expansion of the maintenance facility.
R:FERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering - Having reviewed the above application zid made a
site inspection, the Engineering Department has the Following
comments:
1. The applicant has indicated there will not be an ij :rease in
demand for public services. The Engineering Department ,ontacted
the Water Department and they indicated there would be adequate
water supply. The Fire. Department indicated there would be
adequate fire protection but that they would recommend -''.iere be a
block wall between the fertilizer storage and garage areas of
this development. Drainage on the site was evaluatt3 and it
appears that any runoff resulting from this developmer: will be
retained on site.
2. The applicant needs to submit a plat which de icts the
applicable information required by Section 7-1004 (D) ( ) (a) (3)
and (D) (2) (a).
Environmental Health - The Aspen/Pitkin Environment 1 Health
Department has reviewed the above -mentioned land use Submittal
for the following concerns.
Air Quality: The applicant will need to give considc:ation to
the Aspen Clean Indoor Air act in its design of the ;3ditional
space.
Also to set an example, and to ensure compliance witl
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Colorado Visibility
the applicant should install compact fluorescent lic_
reduce air pollution. It takes more energy to
incandescent bulb than a fluorescent bulb. Therefor
dioxide and sulfur dioxide pollution is reduced at th(
power generation by many pounds over lifetime of the bu'.
The applicant will need to apply for a fugitive dust co:
approximately 6 weeks before construction. The appl;
have to commit to enough measures to ensure that dust
blow off the property or result in complaints. These
may include, but are not limited to, fencing around
areas, placement of gravel along the access road, ant
treatment of disturbed area.
National
:andards,
.ts which
Dower an
carbon
point of
as.
trol plan
:ant will
does not
measures
iisturbed
chemical
As part of this expansion, the applicant should be r(juired to
pave the access road/driveway to minimize dust from t) ! traffic
into and out of the maintenance buildings. The parki��/storage
area in the back of the current building should also be Daved.
A mechanical engineer should be consulted to ensure that the
addition is designed so that emissions from vehicles gill not
result in unhealthful levels of pollutants in the build ng.
Noise:
Noise from this project can be expected to have an impr;t on the
immediate neighborhood during the construction phase.
The applicant shall design noise reduction nto the
storage/maintenance facility as a responsibilitN to the
neighbors. This should involve an evaluation of r.11 noise
generating equipment and design to mitigate any noise i Dove that
allowed by City Ordinance.
Should complaints be registered with this office Chapte: 16 Aspen
Municipal Code, titled Noise Abatement, will be the doc*.ment used
in the investigation.
2
STAFF COMMKENTS:
A. Site - The site is zone P (Park) and is a portion o: Lot 1 of
the Golf Course Subdivision. Lot l contains approxir itely 182
acres of land. The existing 2,000 square foot mainte: ince shop
was built in 1976 and is located in proximity to the Pa::cs office
on roughly eight acres of land.
B. Background - In 1986, the Parks Department suk .itted an
application for a 9,o0o square foot facility to be loca, �d on the
subject site. This application was withdrawn after con- ideration
of the Planning and. zoning Commission and opposi- ton from
neighbors. As a result of the application being wit) trawn and
the need for a more functional facility, the Planning *-partment
initiated a study addressing existing maintenance nE :ds, long
range needs, locational/functional pl:rameters and potential
sites. Attached is the report "Comparative Eval, 3tion of
Maintenance Facility Sties - Combined and Shared", att, ;hment A.
The recommendation section gives a summary of the report's
findings. Overall, a limited e::uansion of the existii ) site is
the best option.
C. Project Description -
Expansion Needs: The existing facility serves as the matntenance
headquarters of the Municipal Golf Course, Aspen Parks Building
?•:aintenance, Mall, and Nordic, Pedestrian and Bicyc3 : Trails.
The facility is used year round reaching peak use in )e summer
season when 40 parks and golf Department employees and 50 pieces
of machinery operate out of the building. The buildii ) is also
used for mechanical repair and chemical storage. Beca> ,e of the
size of the facility, maintenance equipment is s-•Dject to
vandalism and pre -mature economic obsolescence due t weather
exposure.
The entry way, is only 16 feet wide and is ineffici -)t as it
creates a bottleneck as machinery is moved in and o t of the
entryway.
Since 1986, the last application, the operational deman, s of this
facility have increased. The Citv now maintains a:! of the
trails within the Aspen Metro Area and the Nordic traJ?s. Golf
Course employees has increased from 8 to 15.
In 1989 the golf course was inspected by the Regional I7ronomist
of the USGA. Please see the first 2 pages of the attac` �d report
B.
An agent from the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Shar:-ig Agency
(CIRSA) inspected the facility in 1987 and recommender that the
equipment be properly stored and protected from the ele: Bnts, and
a more sturdy and secure building be used for s orage of
3
chemicals and pesticides, and a safety check be conduct(5 for the
stability of the existing building.
In a recent survey done by staff, a comparison was lone with
ether Colorado maintenance facilities. Attachment C ;hows the
sizes of six combined golf/parks maintenance an( storage
facilities. This chart does not show the acreagE of land
maintained, so. it cannot be used as a conclusive i.nd`:ator for
this type of facility.
Issues and Concerns: The most significant objectioes to the
previous application were:
1. visual impact due to size and height;
2. a lack of need and locational planning analysis;
3. use of parks and open space land for building of a: �' kind;
and
4. improper use of the ground for storage of miscell ineous
equipment not essential to the operation of the facility.
The revised plan for the expanded facility has sought address
these concerns. The design objectives for the new plan were to:
1. alleviate the entryway bottleneck;
2. provide for indoor storage of parks and golf c curse
machinery;
3. design a secure properly ventilated space for pest: ::ides and
toxic chemical; and
4. limit the size and height of the structure to alleviate
visual impacts from Cemetery Lane and su rounding
residential properties.
Development rlan: The applicant proposes to construe. a 2,160
square foot addition for a total of 4,160 squarE feet of
structure on the site. The addition will be link( 1 to the
existing building and extend in a northerly direction. Building
materials will be concrete block. The flat roof will )>t exceed
11.5 feet in height. Please see attached site plan and site
profile, attachment D and E.
The fence and landform defining the western bounda7r of the
courtvard will be relocated 18 feet to the west. Th( existing
landscaping on the berm will be replanted on the relocated
landform and in the northwest corner. The, entrance will be
increased from 16 to 30 feet wide providing a more Efficient
access and egress to the facility. Also, more vegetatit-) will be
4
located on the other berm surrounding the facility.
The new building will provide a properly ventilated i id secure
storage area for dangerous chemicals.
Construction is intended to begin this summer and coi >leted by
late summer.
D. Conditional Use Review - A park maintenance buil ing is a
conditional use in the P zone. This proposal does not ,ialify as
an insubstantial amendment to a conditional use and therefore
shall be reviewed pursuant to Section 7-304 of the Land Jse Code.
Following are the standards of review for conditional u:=_ review:
1. The conditional use is consistent with the purpos( goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Com: rehensive
Plan, and with the intent of the Zone District ii ohich it
is proposed to be located.
F.ESPONSE: The 1973 Land Use Plan designates the sit! as Open
Space/Golf Course. The purpose of the P zone "is to e: ,ure that
land intended for recreation use is developed so as to verve its
intended use, while not exerting a disruptive inf uence on
surrounding land uses." The golf course and the City } irks must
be maintained to ensure they are used for their "inter led use".
The City must have adequate maintenance and storage :o insure
proper maintenance of parks land. IN' ithout an efficient
maintenance facility the parks and golf course will p '.entially
suffer from improper maintenance and may face increasin, pressure
from non -recreational development. Two examples cou:3 be the
change in use of the Aspen One and Marolt parcels.
2. The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the
character of the immediate vicinity of•the parce. prcposed
for development and surrounding land uses, or en) inces the
mixture of complimentary uses and activitief in the
immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for de- slopment;
and
RESPONSE: For this new maintenance plan, the appl cant has
carefully considered the input received from he 1986
applications and has design a facility which mini izes the
impacts on the surrounding private and public lands. '..ie visual
impacts will be minimal while the enlarged facility w: ll enable
enclosed equipment storage reducing the clutter of the 1 Drk yard.
Please see attached citizen comments, F.
3. The location, size, design and operating characte:istics of
the proposed conditional use ninimizes adverse effects,
including visual impacts, impacts on pedes-. ian and
vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service 3elivery,
E
•
noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding properti,:;.
RESPONSE: The height of the addition will be 11.5 fec and as
the site profile indicates is wel: shielded by the .andscaped
;germ. The proposal requires relocation of the fence an( landfern
defining the western boundary 18 feet to the west. Existing
landscaping on the berm will be replanted. Increasing :he width
of the entrance should eliminate any congestion crE.ted when
entering the maintenance work yard.
4. There are adequate public facilities and serviceE to serve
the conditional use including but not limited .o roads,
potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, pol ce, fire
protection, emergency medical services,
hospital and medical services, drainage sysk�ms, and
schools.
RESPONSE: As the Engineering Department has indicates in their
referral there are adequate public facilities to serve the
proposed use.
5. The applicant commits to supply affordable housir.i to meet
the incremental need for increased employees ger.!rated by
the conditional use.
RESPONSE: No additional employees will be aenerater by t;lis
expansion.
6. The proposed conditional use complies with all rdditional
standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehe: 3ive Plan
and by all other applicable requirements of this c: spter.
RESPONSE: A GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Serv:yes shall
be required before final approval of this project. his is a
review at Council. The applicant must also submit a ) 1at which
depicts the applicable information required by Section -1004 (D)
(1) (a) (3) and (D) (2) (a). .
E. Amendment to PUD - This application amends the PUD 'Dut shall
not be considered an insubstantial amendment. Sect .on 7-903
outlines the following standards for PUD amendments s) ill apply
(this memo will only cover those standards which are re:=_vant for
the proposal):
1. General Requirements:
a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The 1973 Land Use Plan designates the sit! as Open
Space/Golf Course. The purpose of the P zone "is to e,' >ure that
land intended for recreation use is developed so as to >erve its
intended use, while not exerting, a disruptive inf uence on
surrounding land uses." As mentioned in the Conditional Use
review section, the golf course and the City Park: must be
maintained to ensure the), are used for their "intended ,.3e." The
City must have adequate maintenance and storage to insire proper
maintenance of parks land.
b: The proposed development shall be consistent wit] the
character of existing land uses in the surrou: Sing
area.
RESPONSE: As was discussed in the Conditional U s review
section, the applicant has carefully considered 7e input
received from the 196U applications and has designed i facility
which minimizes the impacts on the surrounding private : -Id public
lands. The visual impacts will be minimal while the enlarged
facility will enable enclosed equipment storage red cing the
clutter of the work yard.
C. The proposed development shall not adversely affec- the
future development of the surrounding area.
RESPONSE: The area is zoned Park. This expansion F xould not
adversely affect the future development of the golf ( )urse but
will ensure the. continued maintenance of the metro tr,Lls, City
parks, and public golf course.
d. Final approval shall only be granted to the deve:�pment to
the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained b: the
applicant.
RESPONSE: A GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Serv: :es shall
be required before final approval of this project. his is a
review at Council.
2. Density - The maximum density shall be no greater than that
permitted in the underlying Zone District.
RESPONSE: The applicant is not requesting an inerea e in the
permitted density.
3. Land Uses - The land uses permitted shall be thc:e of the
underlying Zone District.
RESPONSE: A golf/parks maintenance facility is a conditional use
in the Park. zone. This application has already addressed
conditional use review.
4. ' Dimensional Requirements - shall be those of the �iderlying
zone district.
7
R.ESPO14SE: The dimensional requirements are discussed :z Section
F.
5. Landscape Plan - there shall be approved as part of -he Final
Development Plan a landscape plan, which exhibits a wel: designed
treatment of.exterior spaces.
RESPONSE: Please see attached site plan.
6. Architectural Site Plan - as part of the Final D,-.relopment
plan an architectural site plan shall be approved.
RESPONSE: Please see attached profile plan.
7. Lighting - shall be arranged so as to prevent direc glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets :)r lands.
RESPONSE: Lighting shall be in compliance with this st: -idard.
8. Adequate public facilities - shall- be ava:table to
accommodate the proposed development.
RESPONSE: As the Engineering Department has indicates in their
referral there are adequate public facilities to erve the
proposed use.
9. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation
RESPONSE: Traffic circulation to the site will not b( changed,
in fact the bottleneck at the entrance to the work yard.3hould be
relieved as the entrance is widened.
F. Consistency with the Final Plan - pursuant. to Sec; ton 7-908
an amendment to a PUD, other than an insubstantial amendment
shall be reviewed using the procedures of the Final D velopment
Plan. It shall be determined that the amendments are ( insistent
with the approved final plan.
RESPONSE: The adoption of the Golf Course SPA/PUD pl< i did not
specify area and bulk requirement for the site and buil, ing. The
following should establish the dimensional, area and' bull:
requirements of the amendment to the Final Plan.
1. The building shall be located as shown on plans ane recorded
on the amended plat.
2. The maximum height of the addition shall be 11.5 fe(t.
3. The maximum size of the addition shall be 2,160 fc a total
4,160. This cannot be altered without an amendmc it to the
PUD.
8
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the condi- Tonal use
and PUD amendment for the expansion of the-golf/parks m. irtenance
facility with the following conditions:
1. The applicant needs to submit a plat which dE icts the
applicable information required by Section 7-1004 (D) (:) (a) (3)
and (D) (2) (a).
2. The applicant shall comply with the National An Bent Air
Quality Standards and Colorado Visibility Standards .nd shall
install compact fluorescent lights which reduce air pol:ation.
3. The applicant will need to apply for a fugitive du::. control
plan approximately 6 weeks before construction.
4. The applicant shall be required to pave tl a access
road/driveway to minimize dust from the traffic into z id out of
the maintenance buildings. The parking/storage area ii the back
of the current building should also be paved.
5. The applicant shall design noise reduction Lnto the
storage/maintenance facility as a responsibility to the
neighbors.
6. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupant , for the
new addition, the plantings on the existing berm shall be
reinforced and the relocated berm replanted.
7. Based upon the recommendation of the CIRSA, pri r to the
issuance of e Certificate of Occupancy, the existinc building
shall be inspected to ensure the stability of the struc-ure.
S. A GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Services shall be
approved before final approval of this project.
9. A block wall shall be included in the constructs n of the
addition between the fertilizer storage and garage area:.
golf.pz
Q*
ATTACHMENT A
M EMORA NDU M
TO: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manaqer
Bill Ness, Director Parks Department
F.ich Coulombe, Director Golf Course
FROM: Tom Baker, Plannina Office
Elyse Elliott, Engineering Office
RE: Parks/Golf Course Maintenance Facility
D1=: July 1, 1986
PDRP'OSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to evaluate alternative sites
and/or the separation of maintenance functions for the proposed
expansion of the combined Parks and Golf Maintenance Facil itv.
Staff is conducting this analysis as a result of concerns raised
by the public and P&Z at the P.pril 22, 1986 public hearing. At
that meeting questions were raised regarding the appropriateness
of an expanded facility at the existing location, and regarding
the viability of other locations for this facility.
EXISTING NEEDS FOF-, ?JAINTFIU�VCE FACILITY
The Existing Parks and Golf Maintenance Facility was constructed
in 1976. Since 1976, the Golf Course has been expanded from 9
holes to 18 holes; the City has taken over the trail system from
cie-Eounty and the City has purchased .approximately .6.0 acres. c-f._._ ...
Parks and open Space (mosk of this acreaee recuires little
maintenance) . Further, in 1985, the City adopted the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/.rails Element;
this Element called for park development at Iselin Par}: (16
acres) , Marolt-Tlrhomas (82 acres) , Koch Park (1.5 acres) and Molly
Gibson (9 acres) . In addition, the Element called for continuing
to expand the trail system in and around the community.
This past and likely future growth of the Golf Course, and Parks
and Trails has and will cause the need for additional maintenance
equipment. Clearly, . the existing inventory of equipment has
outgrown the existing maintenance facility. As a result, the
Parks Department and Golf Department have proposed to expand the
existinc combined maintenance facility. F:jllowina is a list of
problems which the existing situation �czeates.
o Security - Presently storage of equipment is spread
throughout the community. This presents a security
problem for the Parks and Golf Department. Annually
Part, and Golf loses an estimated due to inadequate
security for equipment and materials.
o Liability - The lack of security for equipment increases
the potential for an accident.
o Equipment Life - The outdoor storage of equipment
causes constant exposure to the elements and reduces
the equipment's useful life.
o Efficiency - The scattered nature of equipment storage
causes labor inefficiencies.
o Appearance - The array of equipment and materials
stored outside at the existing site and at the Town &
Country site detracts from the golf course setting.
o Safety - Currently. -working space and mat�ria- storage
space- are shared, increasing the prospects of safety
related problems.
o Access - Existing access to the maintenance facility
occurs off of Cemetery Lane less than 50 feet from the
SH 82/Cemetery Lane intersection. This creates traffic
safety problems.
LONG-RA14GE NEEDS FOR ?j&INTENANCE FACILITY
In order to evaluate the long-range maintenance needs of Golf and
Parks, we can look at adopted plans. The Golf Course is limited
in size by its existing borders. Any future change in the Golf
Course will be fine tuning and will not effect the maintenance
equipment needs of the Golf Course.
Parks Department, how -ever,.. -faces the prospects-Cf _.expansioll in.
both parks and trails. The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan:
Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element outlines the long-
range plans for parks and trails. Tbey are:
Parks
o Develop 16 acres of lan.'. directly north of Iselin Park
for active recreation (similar uses to what currently
exists at Iselin);
o Develop the 82 acre Marolt-Thomas Parcel as a passive
park with extensive trails;
o Develop the 1.5 acre Koch Lumber Parcel with volley
ball courts and landscaping; and
o Develop the 9 acre Molly Gibson parcel with a trail and
landscaping.
K
Trails
o Create approximately 15 miles of additional trails (3-4
miles of which are paved) .
Although the majority of the above mentioned park and trail
development will not be maintenance intensive, some portions will
be, in particular that at Iselin Park. Further, all future parks
and trails expansion will require some level of maintenance.
During discussions with the Director of Parks concerning long-
range ma Cen`ance facility needs, staff determined that the
propose ��Q ,00�0���square foot expansion would be adequate for the
foreseeabl\e__ure with one exception, that being Iselin Park. If
.Iselin Park develops into the recreation complex that the concept
plan illustrates, then a maintenance equipment storage building
will be necessary on -site. This storage building will house
equipment wbich is dedicated to maintaining an expanded Iselin
Park. Regardless whether or not Iselin Par}; develops fully,
the propose 9,000 �° uare foot maintenance facility expansion
will adequatel.�,�eet the existing -and long-range maintenance
facility needs of`r�oth Parks and Golf.
In an effort to understand the costs and benefits associated with
relocation of the existing facility or separation of the parks
and golf functions, we have undertaken an evaluation of alternative
sites.
LOCATIONAL/FUNCTIONAL PARAMETERS
For the purpose of this memorandum we have identified two 1•,)ca-
tional/functional parameters. Due to the specialized nature of a
golf course maintenan-cam -facility, we feel that this facility
should be located adjacent to or on the golf course; and due to
the small scale nature of vehicles and engines associated with
this maintenance facility, we do not feel that total consolidation
with City Shops is practical. However, maintenance work on
trucks at the City Shops is acceptable and is currently being
done by Golf and Parks.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Parcel size - 8 acres Attachment A
Existing Structure - 2,000 sq. ft. Attachment A
Proposed Expansion - 9 ,000 sq. f t. Attachment A
Employees - 13 full-time
25-30 seasonal
Zoning - P "Park" - maintenance facility is a conditional
use, expansion requires setting of area and bulk
requirements by an SPA plan.
Equipment - Attachment B
Proposed Uses in Expansion - Attachment C
3
ALTER2?5,TIVES
This section will evaluate the alternatives for the proposed
expansion of the combined Parks and Golf Maintenance Facility.
These alternatives include relocation of the combined maintenance
facility, separation of the maintenance facility functions and
expansion of the combined maintenance facility on the existing
site. Following is a table which compares the alternative sites
and evaluates how each accomplishes the stated criteria. We then
sion of each alternative's major advantages
present a brief discus
and disadvantages.
Relocation Of Combined .:aintenance Facility - The available sites
for relocation of the combined maintenance facility are limited
to sites bn of -adjacent to the Golf. Course (see Locational/Eunc-
tional Parai:ieters section) . Generally, any relocation will
entail 4-6 acres of land with adequate access for both _narks and
golf. Additionally, relocation will likely cause the :;eed for
construction beyond the. proposed expansion, that is, replacement
of existing office and sorage space as well as the infrastructure -
roads and utilitief-.
The two sites most frequently mentioned are:
1 The area at the east end of the Town and Country (currently
material is stored in this location) .
2. Plum Tree Ball Field/Driving Range Area.
Town and Country Site
The-re-lo-cation of -the existine Parks and Golf Maintenan_ce--Facilit%'.
to the Town- and County site has the advantages of:
o Removing the current maintenance use from the existing
sit , where there have been complaints from neighboring
residents.
o Removing traffic fro: SH 82/Cemetery Lane intersection.
Disadvantages of the Town and County Site includes:
o Adding traffic to Sh 62 west of Cemetery Lane.
o Maintenance facility traffic will utilize both the Golf
Course Parking Lot and the Town and County Parking lot
for access to the maintenance facility.
o Due to the landing area needs of holes 9 and 10 the
Town and County site is too small.
4
I I 11 0++ O O
+ +
+
+ T
+
+
I
O
O I
+
1+
O
T
O
O
1 1
I
I T++
+
+
+ +
T
+ +
+
+ t
T
+
+
+
T+
o
Ci l
i
o
+
+
+ + T + + + + + + V id l.J
Q .5 rc�EL
l-u
�- + + + + + + + + C) Q)
> 1j 7
1J L 1J
No 43Lo
�QQ
•^� JJ
.1
p .C1 .a o c c
I-
4. p c tl1 C � � ° c
.� 'eOJ . -t •1 C •-� to 1A • O Q' _O O CP p It II II
LeiC U cL O F� w v N.c ` In + O I
0.8
w w E4
�.W
8��°
o Relocation of the combined maintenance facil ity, is the
most costly alternative.
Plum Tree/Driving Range
The relocation of the existing Parks and Golf Maintenance Facility
to the Plum Tree/Driving Range area has the same advantages as
the Town and Country, that is:
o Removina the current maintenance use from the existing
site where there have been complaints from neighborhing
residents.
o Removing traffic from SH 82/Cemetery Lane intersection.
The disadvantages of the Plum tree/Drivin, Range area include:
o Adding slow moving traffic to SH 82 west of Cemetery Lane.
o Maintenance facility traffic will utilize the Golf
Course Parking Lot for access to the maintenance facility.
o The relocated maintenance facility will be highly
vis-bie from SH 82.
o Established uses in this area - playing field, driving
range, putting green, p rking lot ��ill bF disrupted or
lost.
o Relocation of the combined maintenance facility is the
most costly alternative.
Separation Of Maintenance Functions - Generally any separation of
the maintenance functions would entail either parks or golf to
remain at the current location and the other use to be relocated..
This option requires less land and lower construction costs than
a combined facility. This option, however, will cause reduced
ef iciencies in management and staff and likely require the
purchase of additional equipment due to the separated nature of
these functions. For example, staff has determined that separate
facilities will require the following duplication - offices,
office equipment, staff (one secretary and one mechanic) , storage
and maintenance areas.
Further, Attachment B illustrates the extent of equipment sharing
which occurs between the two departments at the combined facility.
The separation of maintenance functions will cause some operational
inefficiencies which do not currently exist and the need to
purchase duplicate equipment (the extent of these inefficiencies
depends on the distance between the'two facilities) .
2
•
•
The sites most frequently mentioned are:
1. Town and Country.
2. Plum Tree/Driving Range Area.
3. Iselin Park.
4. Marol t-Thomas.
5. City Shops.
Town and Country
This alternative mails for th,e separation of the maintenance
facility functions by continuing the Parks Maintenance function
at the existing Cemetery Lane location and relocating the Golf
Maintenance Function to the Town and Country site. The advantages
of, this alternative include:
o Reduced traffic, reduced land use and visual impacts at
the existing site.
o Existing trees at Town and Country site will reduce
visual impact of relocated facility on SH 82.
Disacvantages of this alternative include:
o Site may be too small.
o Operational efficiencies will be reduced, however,
proximity- of two -facilities will minimize this. ---
o Traffic between two facilities will utilize golf course
road and disrupt "quite zone".
Plum Tree/Driving Range Area
This alternative calls for the separation of the Golf and Parks
Maintenance Facility function by continuing the Parks Maintenance
_ function at the existing Cemetery Lane location and relocating
the Golf Maintenance function to the Plum Tree/Driving Range
area. The advantages of this alternative include:
o Reduced traffic, reduced visual and land use impacts at
the existing site.
The disadvantages of this alternative include:
o Adding traffic to SH 82 west of Cemetery Lane.
.7
o Maintenance traffic will utilize the Golf Course
Parking Lot for access to the Golf Maintenance facility.
o This facility will be highly visible from SH 82..
o Established uses in this area - playing field, driving
range, putting green, parking lot will be disrupted or
lost.
o Operational efficiencies will be reduced due to the
separated nature of these facilities.
Iselin Park
This alternative calls for the separation of the Parks and Golf
l;airntenance facility fun-ctions-by continuing the Golf maintenance
function at the existing Cemetery Lane location and relocating
the Parks Maintenance function to Iselin Park. The advantages of
this alternative include:
o Reduced traffic, reduced visual and land use impacts at
the existing site.
o The -Iselin Park location does not visually impact the
SH 82 Corridor.
o Iselin Park may evolve into a recreation complex and,
therefore, a Parks Maintenance facility may be very
appropriate at this location.
The disadvantage of the Iselin Park site include:
o Increased traffic both _w-est of Cemetery Lane on SH 82
and around the high school -middle school area.
o Iselin Park is at the edge of the Parks Department's
service area.
o Operation efficiencies are greatly reduced due to the
distance between the two facilities.
Marolt-Thomas
This alternative calls for the separation of the Parks and Golf
Maintenance facility functions by continuing the Golf Maintenance
function at the existing Cemetery Lane location and relocating
the Parks Maintenance function on the Marolt-Thomas site. The
advantages of this alternative include:
o Reduces traffic, reduced visual and land use impacts at
existing site.
E
•
•
O May not visually impact SH 82 Corridor.
The disadvantages of this alternative include:
o Adding traffic on SH 82 west of Cemetery Lane:
o Operational efficiencies will be greatly reduced due to
the distance between the two facilities.
o Inconsistent with Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan:
Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Element because Marolt-
Thomas is designated as passive open space.
City Shops
This alternative calls for the separation of the Parks and Golf
Maintenance facility functions by continuing the golf maintenance
function at the existing site and relocating the parks maintenance
function to the City Shops location. This al ter native, however,
depends on the relocation of the City Shop function to another
City Shops is currently being
site. The relocation of the
considered due to the constraints of the existing City Shops
facil itv . At this time, however, it appears that the present
City Shops will continue to play a role in overall City vehicle
maintenance, ' probably in tandem with a consolidated Coutywide
facility. The advantages of this alternative include:
o Reduces traffic, reduced visual and land use impacts at
the existing site.
o Does not visually impact SH 62.
o Close proximity to existing facil it% -
o Decreases traffic on SH 82.
storage area may sicnif icantly
o Existing structure and
reduce cost.
The disadvantages of this alternative include:
o Timine delay, with City Shops relocation/shops may not
fully relocate.
o Existing conflicts at this site with surrounding
residences will continue and may be intensified.
o Operational efficiencies will be reduced, however, this
will be minimal due to the close proximity of the two
sites.
Expansion of the Existing Site - Generally expansion or. the
9
existing site is the most cost effective alternative because it
}seeps the operational efficiencies of a combined faci ity without
the relocation costs. Although expansion on the existing site
generally means expansion to the north, the resolution of the
Entrance to Aspen issue may allow for expansion of the existing
maintenance facility to the south.
bcpansion of the Existing Site
(North)
The advantages to expanding the existing facility to the north
include:
o Cost -operational efficiencies are maximized and capital
costs are minimized.
The disadvantages include:
o Impact on adjacent residential area - by expanding the
maintenance facility to the north the maintenance
activities and structures are brought to the edge of
the R-15 zone.
Expansion of the Existing Site
(South)
The implementation of this alternative requires the "Entrance to
Aspen" to follow an alignment through the Marolt-Thomas and
connect dirt:ctly with Main Street.. The existing highway west of
Cemetery Lane would be removed and utilized as open space. this
"Entrance concept would allow the combined Parks and Golf
Maintenance facility to expand to the south. The advantages of
this alternative include:
o Cost - operational efficiencies are maximized and
capital costs are minimized.
o This on -site expansion does not move the maintenance
facility closer to the residential area.
The disadvantages include:
o Timing - although the "Entrance" question may be
resolved this fall the actual construction of the
highway will not be complete until after the year 2000.
C. This facility will be visible from SH 82.
RECOMMEhDAT10N
The staff feels that each alternative has its own special set of
problems: relocating the entire facility is very costly; separating
10
the maintenance function will have both capital costs and higher
operational cost for the City; and expansion of the existing
facility has impacts on the neighborhood to the north of the
existing site or a timing constraint which may be unacceptable.
It is the staff's opinion that Parks and Golf have similar main-
tenance requirements, small scale machinery, and that these two
maintenance functions are well suited for combining in one
maintenance facility. The staff is also sensitive to the concerns
of the neighborhood - scale, noise and visual impact. Therefore,
the staff recommends that a design analysis be undertaken in an
attempt to totally screen the building from sight and thereby
mitigate the most significant, impacts associated with expansion
(north) on the existing site. If this analysis demonstrates that
the impacts of a maintenance facility,. expansion can be successfully
mitigated, then the staff recommens that the expansion be built
as soon as possible. If, however, . the impacts of an expanding
maintenance facility cannot be mitigated on the existing site,
then the staff recommends that consideration be qiven to the City
Shops site as a location for a portion of the Golf and Parks
Maintenance function (provided the Streets Department is relocated) .
TB .1
94
11
1,TTAC HM, E I', T
I. SaA!
United Les
Golf As. iation'-
B —
�/
300 Sharron Dr.
Waco, Tccas 76712
(817) 776-0765
G-rcc l Section
NIId-C< ndr-ent Region
w 0.,.
KID, �IAN
jA "ES 'RANG,S MOOQE
USGA Green Section Turf Advisory Service Visit
Aspen Golf Course
Aspen, .Colorado
Present: Mr. Bill Eftinc, Leisure Services Dir•ctor
Mr. Dick Meeker, President MGA
Mr. Ernie FYywald, Professionai
Mr. Rich Coulombe, Superintend�-.-nt
The following comments are offered to summarize the major
topics of discussion during the Turf Advisory Service
visit on August 31, 1989.
It was indeed a pleasure to visit Aspen Golf Course and
have the opportunity to discuss ongoing maintenance
operations. In general, the course was in good condition
during the time of this visit and it was 0.bv1ol`S that
great progress has been made in recent years. 'Without
cuestion, the introduction of lightweight mowers on tl:e
fairways has made a dramatic improvement _'n both
appearance and playabillty. Looking ahead, the Gaily use
of these mowers should help encourage Kentucky b:uecrass
domination. This will of course be at the expense of Poa
annua that was encouraged by the previous mowing
equipment. Hopefully such improvements will continue in
the luture with the installation of additlonal cart paths
and the construction of a proffer mainten=nce facility.
In all candor, the most shocking stop on our three hour
tour.of the course was the maintenance facility. slaving
visited well over 400 courses throughout the entire
country while emploved by the USGA, 1 can state with great
confidence that such conditions are out of the ordinary.
Furthermore, the fact that such expensive equipment is
.being stored outdoors during the winter season should be
more than enough justification for additional facilities.
•
;aspen Golf Course
September 12, 1989
Looking ahead, it was certainly encouraging_ to learn that
an additional Say will be added to the current garage,
however, this will be no means satisfy your overall
storage needs. As funds become available, a larger
�� maintenance facility should be constructed as tailed for
TTSl� in the enclosed article.
In addition to maintenance facility needs the following
major agronomic points were also discussed: Poa annua
control, thatch control, soil fertility, managing new
bentgrass greens, overseeding, tee mowing height, fairway
aerification, and various other remarks. Should you have
any questions concerning the contents of this report or
any comments made during the visit, please do not hesitate
to contact your regional office.
GREEDS
Poa annua Control
At present, the greens are being treated with the
herbicide, paclobutrazol (TGR) at 1/4 the recommended rate
on a monthly basis. Before visiting many of the greens,
one might become concerned as to the effect of these
applications on day to day putting quality. while =
certainly do not disagree with an attempt to reduce the
amount of Poa annua, the success of any removal program is
measured against the rate at which it is removed. Given
that the greens at Aspen Golf Course have a high
percentage of Poa annua an annual reduction o
approximately 10o would certainly be quite acceptable.
After putting several greens the effect of the quarter
rate applications seems to have little effect on putting
quality now that the greens have been lowered to a 1/8''
height of cut.
Having come from an area of the country where
paclobutrazol (TGR) is unavailable, I am unfortunately
unable to state whether a single fall application at a
rate of 80 pounds per acre will have less or greater
effect on the competition between bentgrass and Poa annua.
with this in mind, you may wish to compare the results of
a single application on a small area of the practice
putting green. Furthermore, it would be appropriate to
contact Mr. james Moore and discuss this program in
Page 2
ATTACHMENT C
COMBINED GOLF/PARRS MAINTENANCE 7-ND STORAGE FACILITIES
,c
Goy` Course/v,s�..palitySize in Square Feet
Cortez
Lincoln Park. 10,000
A
2,000
spen
Fort Collins 7,650
Rangely 4,565
Spring Hill 1,350
Source City of Aspen Parks and Golf Department, February 1990
ATTACHMENT E
3 C C C C
< c G C -
•
CaOaO
� i I
•
c x
C v.
{n <
m Z
G
Y Y�
r• �
r
r
R,
AW
r. _ TT C Y. N—� T;T F 0 •
KRA13ACHKI:. SCHIFFER A HILL Y.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAK
201 NORTH MILL STREET
ASPEN COLORADO 61611
TELEPHONE
(303) 925.6300
TELECOPIEQ
(303) 925-1191
6 JOSEPHKQAbACHER
SPENCER F. SCHIFFER
THOI.tt,S C *HILL
April 9, 1990
Mr. Welton Anderson
Lspen Planning and Zoning
L
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 61611
Re: Golf. Course Knintenance Facility
Land Use Application
Dear- Welton:
Of COL)NSEL
BARRY D EDWARDS
I an writing in support of the Parks and Golf Departments'
land use application for a 2,160 square foot expansion of the
park/golf course maintenance and storage facility located just off
Cemetery Lane. I received notice of the application as an adjacent
property owner on Cemetery Lane, and want to state that I support
the application as a property owner and as a resident who is
interested in the upgrading and maintenance of the golf course.
there would be no adverse impacts on the
From my point of view
neighborhoodd-and a significant benefit to the community if the
application is approved.
Thank you for your
SFS/ch
SFS2H/08
cc: Mr. Dick Meeker
consideration.
very truly yol�vs
y tABACHER, SCH�
By:
Spencer F
& HILL, P.C.
Schiffer
0 •
mw
Parks/Golf Course
Maintenance and Storage
Facility
1
1
1
CITY OF ASPEN
PARRS AND GOLF
'
MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE FACILITY
1
1
Prepared Through
City of Aspen
1
Parks and Golf Department
Bill Efting, Acting City Manager
Bill Ness, Acting Leisure Services Director
1
Richard Coulombe, Golf Superintendent
George Robinson, Assistant Parks Superintendent
1
Prepared by
Glenn Horn AICP
1
Davis Horn Incorporated
Planning, Appraisal and Real Estate Consultants
300 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado
(303) 925 6587
1
and
Charles Cunniffe & Associates/Architects
'
Box 3534
Aspen, Colorado
(303) 925-5590
1
•
0
Section
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
1
I.
BACKGROUND
4
II.
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION
12
III.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION
FOR ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
15
IV.
OTHER AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE
17
V.
OTHER AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
20
VI.
APPENDIX
25
1. Pre -application Summary Sheet
2. July 1, 1986 Memorandum from Tom Baker
and Elyse Elliot entitled "Parks/Golf
Maintenance Facility
3. February 27 Letter from Bill Efting
Authorizing Glenn Horn to Submit
Application
4. September 12, 1989 Letter from Paul
Vermeulen, United States Golf Association,
regarding Aspen Golf Course
5. July 17, 1987 Letter from John Dunn,
Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing
Agency, regarding Aspen Parks and Golf
Storage and Maintenance Facility
' INTRODUCTION
' The City of Aspen Parks and Golf Department is requesting land use
approval to construct a 2,160 square foot addition to the existing
parks/golf course maintenance and storage facility located at the
northwest corner of Cemetery Lane and State Highway 82 (SH 82).
' In the spring of 1986, the Parks and Golf Department requested
approval for a 9,000 square foot facility to be located on the
subject site. The application was withdrawn after consideration
' by the Planning and Zoning Commission and opposition from
neighbors. Specific land use approvals requested are:
* Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption for
Essential Public Facilities (Section 8-104 C.l.b.);
* Other Amendment to a Conditional Use (Section 7-301-
7-307);and
* Other Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (Section
7-908 B.).
' The subject site is zoned P (Park) and is a portion of lot 1 of the
tGolf Course Subdivision. Lot 1 contains approximately 182 acres
of land. The existing 2,000 square foot maintenance shop was built
' in 1976 and is located in proximity to the Parks office on roughly
eight acres of land (Refer to Figure 1 - Vicinity Map).
' The application is divided into the following five sections:
I. Background;
II. Development Description;
III. Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) Exemption for
Essential Public Facilities;
1
' IV. Other Amendment to a Conditional Use; and
V. Other Amendment to a Planned Unit Development.
I
2
I.
BACKGROUND
This section of the application addresses the expansion needs of
the parks/golf maintenance and storage facility, previous planning
for the facility and the issues and concerns raised during land use
review of the 1986 application.
Expansion Needs
The existing facility serves as the maintenance headquarters for
the:
1. Municipal Golf Course;
2. Aspen Parks;
3. Building maintenance;
4. Mall; and
5. Nordic, pedestrian and bicycle trails.
The facility is utilized on a year round basis reaching peak use
in the summer season when 40 Parks and Golf Department employees
and 60 pieces of machinery operate out of the building. The
facility is also used for mechanical repair and chemical storage.
The existing entryway to the barn yard is only 12 feet wide.
Over $ 1,000,000 of maintenance equipment is subject to vandalism
and pre -mature economic obsolescence due to weather exposure. The
4
n
I
12 foot wide barn yard entry way is a major bottleneck creating
daily hazards and inefficiencies. Employees must regularly wait
inside the bottleneck as machinery is moved out of the entryway.
The equipment and materials stored outside the existing facility
is unattractive.
Since the last application to expand the size of the parks/golf
maintenance and storage building operational demands on the
facility have increased significantly. The City now maintains all
of the trails within the Aspen Metro Area and the nordic trails.
The number of golf course employees has increased from 8 to 15.
On August 31, 1989, Paul Vermeulen, Western Region Agronomist of
the United States Golf Association (USGA) inspected the Aspen Golf
Course. Mr. Vermeulen documented his inspection within a report
attached in the appendix. The following is an except from the
report:
In all condor, the most shocking stop on our three hour
tour of the course was the maintenance facility. Having
visited well over 400 courses throughout the entire
country while employed by the USGA, I can state with
great confidence that such conditions are out of the
ordinary. Furthermore, the fact that such expensive
equipment is being stored outdoors during the winter
should be more than enough justification for additional
facilities. Looking ahead, it was certainly encouraging
to learn that an additional bay will be added to the
current garage, however this will by no means satisfy
your overall storage needs. As funds become available
a larger maintenance facility should be constructed....
The City of Aspen is a member of the Colorado Intergovernmental
5
I
1
1
11
n
Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA). The agency inspects facilities of
member municipalities to assist in loss prevention efforts. John
H. Dunn, CIRSA Loss Control Representative, inspected all City
facilities on June 9, 1987 and made the following observations
concerning the parks/golf maintenance and storage facility shop:
1. My recommendation here concerns the equipment that
at present is not being protected; I feel the City
needs to consider building or installing bays for
the equipment that is now being stored outside.
Equipment that is stored outside ages so much
quicker than equipment that does have some
protection. So, in the long run I feel it would
benefit the City to start protecting the equipment
that is being used by the park and recreation people
instead of letting it sit in the open.
2. My next recommendation would be to also build a new
storage building for chemicals and pesticides that
are being used at the various parks and the golf
course. During my tour I was show the building that
is now housing the chemicals and pesticides and I
feel that a sturdier and more secure building needs
to be used.
3. The City needs to consider looking at the stability
of the present buildings that the parks and
recreation have as far a break room and storage of
the smaller equipment. I could be wrong, but I
think it would be on the City's best behalf that
they have a building official check this building
outs as to the stability of the structure to be on
the safe side.
Previous Planning for the Parks/Golf Maintenance and Storage
Facility
Following the 1986 application, the Planning Office in conjunction
with City Staff initiated a planning study addressing:
1. Existing maintenance facility needs;
2. Long Range Needs for Maintenance Facility;
6
3. Locational/Functional Parameters; and
4. Potential Sites.
Figure 2 is a photo copy of a "Comparative Evaluation cf
Maintenance Facility Sites - Combined and Shared" which was
published in a July 1, 1986 memorandum from Tom Baker, and Elyse
1 Elliot to Ron Mitchell, Bill Ness and Rich Coulombe. The matrix
indicates that each potential site has some advantages and
disadvantages, but overall, a limited expansion of the existing
site is the best option. The staff recommendation in the July 1,
1986 report was:
The staff feels that each alternative has its own special
set of problems: relocating the entire facility is very
costly; separating the maintenance function will have
both capital costs and higher operational costs for the
City; and expansion of the existing facility has impacts
on the neighborhood to the north of the existing site or
' a timing constraint which may be unacceptable.
It is the staffs opinion that parks and golf have
similar maintenance requirements, small scale machinery
and that these two maintenance functions are well suited
for combining in one maintenance facility. The staff is
also sensitive to the concerns of the neighborhood -
scale, noise and visual impact. Therefore, the staff
recommends that a design analysis be undertaken in an
attempt to totally screen the building from sight and
thereby mitigate the most significant impacts associated
with expansion (north) on the existing site. If this
analysis demonstrates that the impacts of a maintenance
facility expansion can be successfully mitigated, then
the staff recommends that the expansion be built as soon
as possible. If, however, the impacts of an expanding
maintenance facility cannot be mitigated on the existing
site, then the staff recommends that consideration be
given to the City shops site as a location for a portion
of the golf and parks maintenance function (provided the
Istreets Department is relocated).
I
Figure 2
()DMEww IVE EVALOM IM OF MKI NrENAN(E
FAC LM SITES
- ODMBMFD AND SEH%RATED
Impct .
Prox.
Comp.
Impct.on Impct.
on
to
with
Size
Avail.
SPc-
Liah,/T.ifefF�f
Hqp.
/App
/Safe /Acc-?rr;3ff-
S9 82 on
ie?yhs/T*d
Estb.
Uses/Ue/Eff
Serv.Oper.Adpt.
/Plan_s(Site/Cost/Site
Of
of
Relocation of
Combined Main-
tenance Facility
• iTown & Country
+
+
+
+
+
_ o +
_
o
+
+
_
_
+
*Plum Tree
+
+
+
+
+
+
o
+
+
Separation of
maintenance Facility
Functions
sTown & Country
+
+
+
o
+
+
- + +
-
o
o
+
0
0
+
•Flun Tree
+
+
+
o
+
+
- - i-
-
o
o
-
o
o
-
•Iselin Park
+
+
+
-
+
i
+ + +
o
-
-
+
+
o
-
*Mrolt-Therms
+
+
+
-
i-
+
+ 0 +
+
o
-
-
+
0
-
eCity Shops
+
+
+
o
+
+
i + +
+
0
0
+
+
+
-
ExFan sion of
Existing Facility
•(North)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+ 0 -
0
0
+
+
+
+
+
&Fansion of
sting Facility
*(South)
+
+
+
+
+
+ 0 0
0
0
+
+
+
+
-
+ = Generally pD si t ive imp ct
o = Generally neutral imFact
- = Generally negative imFact
� � r � r ,■� � � � r � a� asp � � � � � r
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
Issues and Concerns
A review of the previous maintenance and storage facility
application indicates the most significant objections to the
proposed facility:
1. Visual impact due to size and height;
2. A lack of need and locational planning analysis;
3. Use of parks and open space land for building of any
kind; and
4. Improper use of the ground for storage of miscellaneous
equipment not essential to the operation of the facility.
The City Parks and Golf Department staff has sought to address all
of the preceding concerns in the preparation of the revised plan
for the parks/golf maintenance and storage facility. The City
hired Charles Cunniffe and Associates Architects to assist in the
design of the new building. The design objectives were:
1. Alleviate the entryway bottleneck;
2. Provide for indoor storage of parks and golf course
machinery;
3. Design a secure properly ventilated space for pesticides,
and toxic chemicals; and
4. Limit the size and height (as recommended by Tom Baker
and Elyse Elliot in their July 1, 1986 memorandum) of the
structure to alleviate visual impacts from Cemetery Lane
and surrounding residential properties.
As a basis of comparison, the City staff surveyed the sizes of 35
7
1
u
I
other Colorado maintenance facilities prior to initiating the
design plans for the facility. Figure 3 presents the sizes of six
combined golf/parks maintenance and storage facilities. The
remaining 29 facilities identified in the survey were exclusively
golf maintenance and storage facilities. Since Figure 3 does not
show the acreage of land maintained, the sizes of combined
parks/golf maintenance and storage facilities in other
municipalities are not a conclusive indication that the Aspen
facility is undersized. Nevertheless, the data are an indicator
of the size of the Aspen facility in relation to others.
FIGURE 3
COMBINED GOLF/PARRS MAINTENANCE AND STORAGE FACILITIES
Golf —Course/Municipality
Size _in— Square —Feet
_-------_-_
Cortez
Lincoln Park
17,500
10,000
Aspen
2,000
Fort Collins
7,650
Rangely
4,565
Spring Hill
1,350
Source: City of Aspen Parks and Golf Department, February 1990
Since 1986, two other factors may be considered issues and
concerns. Some neighbors have suggested that parks/golf equipment
be stored in the new Rio Grande parking garage and other have
10
suggested that with the pending relocation of SH 82, the proposed
facility should be located to the south in the vicinity of the soon
to abandoned SH 82 right-of-way.
IThe Rio Grande Parking Garage is not a good location for storage
of equipment for numerous reason including: lack of security,
distance from service facilities and parks. Locating the facility
further toward the south in the vicinity of the existing SH 82 is
a better option than utilizing the Rio Grande Parking Garage,
however the expansion of the parks/golf maintenance and storage
facility is an immediate need and the relocation of SH 82 is at
least four years away.
The Parks and Golf Department have inventoried the miscellaneous
to determine be
equipment presently stored on site what steps can
taken to reduce unsightly storage. With the construction of the
new facility it will be possible to significantly reduce outdoor
winter storage. The City will relocate most equipment presently
stored outside in the winter to another site.
C�
1
DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes to construct a ?,-160 square foot addition
to the existing maintenance and storage facility. Figure 4 shows
that the addition will be linked to the existing building and
extend in a northerly direction. The building will be constructed
of concrete block and have a flat roof not to exceed 11.5 feet in
height. Figure 5 shows a site profile which indicates that the new
facility will barely be visible from Cemetery Lane and the adjacent
single-family residence located to the north.
The fence and landform defining the western boundary of the
courtyard will be relocated 18 feet to the west. The existing
'
landscaping on the berm will be replanted on the relocated
landform. The entrance to the courtyard will be 30 feet wide
rather than the existing 12 feet. The new entrance will provide
for efficient access and egress to the facility.
The new building shall provide properly ventilated and secure
storage areas for dangerous chemicals.
The applicant anticipates initiating construction in the summer of
1990 with completion by late summer.
12
1
1
I
h
i
1
I
GROWTH MANAGEMENT QUOTA SYSTEM EXEMPTION
FOR
ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITIES
Section 8-104 C.l.b. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations establishes
standards for the review of applications for a Growth Management
Quota System (GMQS) for Essential Public Facilities. This section
of the application addresses the standards.
Standard (8-104 C.1.b.)
All construction of essential public facilities other than housing.
Development shall be considered an essential public facility if it
serves an essential public purpose, provides facilities in response
to the demands of growth, is not itself a growth generator, is
available for use by the general public, and serves the needs of
the City. It shall also be taken into consideration whether the
development is a not -for -profit venture. This exemption shall not
be applied to commercial or lodge development.
Response
The maintenance and storage facility addition is being proposed in
response to the growth of the golf course and the increased demands
on the Parks and Golf Department for maintenance of public
facilities. As noted in Section II of the application, since the
last application in 1986, the Parks Department has taken over
nordic and summer trail maintenance. The proposed facility is a
not -for -profit venture that directly benefits the public facilities
used by residents and visitors.
15
1
Ij
I
1
I
1
Standard
The applicant shall demonstrate that the impacts of the essential
public facility will be mitigated, including those associated with
the generation of additional employees, the demand for parking,
road and transit services, and the need for basic services
including but not limited to water supply, sewage treatment,
drainage control, fire and police protection, and solid waste
disposal. It shall also be demonstrated that the proposed
development has a negligible adverse impact on the City$s air,
water, land and energy resources, and is visually compatible with
surrounding areas.
Response
The proposed development will increase demands for public services.
The existing operation will become more efficient if the
development is constructed, but the function of the facility will
not change. The primary concerns in the past have been the visual
impact of the expansion. As demonstrated in Figures 4 and 5 the
visual impacts of the development will be negligible. The
expansion will be screened by the landforms and landscaping
surrounding the site.
16
!. •
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
IV.
OTHER AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE
The golf/parks maintenance and storage facility is a conditional
use in the P (Park) zone district (5-220 C). The proposed changes
to the maintenance and storage facility are inconsistent with the
standards for a "insubstantial amendment" to a conditional use (7-
307 A.) and therefore constitute "other amendments" to a
conditional use (7-307 B.). This section of the application
responds to the standards applicable to all conditional uses.
Section 7-304 A.
The conditional use is consistent with the purposes, goals,
objectives and standards of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, and
with the intent of the Zone District in which it is proposed to be
located;
The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan designates the subject site as Open
Space/Golf Course. The plan envisions a golf course on the
property. The purpose of the P (Park) zone "is to ensure that land
intended for recreation use is developed so as to serve its
intended use, while not exerting a disruptive influence on
surrounding land uses." The golf course and City parks must be
properly maintained to insure land is used for its intended use.
Inadequate maintenance of parks often leads to land being used for
a non -intended use.
The inadequate maintenance of the Marolt and the Aspen One parcels
17
are examples of how the lack of maintenance may lead to competing
uses such as housing and the arts becoming accepted uses on parks
land. The City must have an adequate maintenance and storage
facility to insure proper maintenance of parks land. Without such
a facility, maintenance of parks land will suffer and inadequately
maintained parks land will face increasing pressure for non -
recreational development.
Section 7-304 B.
The conditional use is consistent and compatible with the character
of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development
and surrounding land uses: or enhances the mixture of complimentary
uses and activities in the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development,
The applicant has taken great care to design a facility which
minimizes impacts on the surrounding private and public lands. As
noted in Section II of the application, the visual impacts of the
facility will be minimal. The enlarged facility will enable the
applicant to reduce the storage of materials and equipment in the
yard nearby the buildings.
' Section 7-304 C.
The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the
proposed conditional use minimizes adverse effects, including
visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian and vehicular circulation,
parking, trash, service delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on
i surrounding properties;
■ Refer to the preceding response to Section 7-304 D.
1 Section 7-304 D.
There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the
conditional use including but not limited to roads, potable water,
18
sewer, solid waste, parks, police, fire protection, emergency
medical services, hospital and medical services, drainage systems,
and schools;
There are adequate public facilities to serve the proposed use.
The enlarged facility will not increase demands on any of the
services listed in this section.
Section 7-304 E.
The applicant commits to supply affordable housing to meet the
' incremental need for increased employees generated by the
conditional use;
There will not be any additional employees generated by the
proposed development.
Section 7-304 F.
The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards
t imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other
applicable requirements of this chapter.
The other sections of this application demonstrate compliance of
the proposal with all applicable sections of the Aspen Land Use
Regulations.
I
1
I
19
I
1
1
V.
OTHER AMENDMENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development constitutes an amendment to a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) development order, but does not meet the
standards of Section 7-909 A. for an "insubstantial amendment."
Therefore, pursuant to Section 7-909 B., the applicant must
demonstrate compliance with the standards in Sections 7-903 A. and
B. These standards are responded to in this section.
Section 7-903 A.
overview of Development Review. A Development Application
requesting approval as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall be
reviewed pursuant to the procedures and standards in this section
and Common Procedures, Art. 6, Div. 2. The procedures require
review and approval of a Conceptual Development Plan and Final
Development Plan by the Commission and the City Council, with
public hearings occurring at the time of Conceptual Development
Plan review by City Council and Final Development Plan review by
the Commission.
The application is being reviewed pursuant to the referenced
section of the Regulations.
Section 7-903 B.1.a.
The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan.
Refer to Section IV of the application, Other Amendment to
Conditional Use.
Section 7-903 B.l.b.
The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of
existing land uses in the surrounding area.
Refer to Section IV of the application, Other Amendment to
Conditional Use.
20
L,
Section 7-903 B.1.c.
The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area.
The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area.
1 S
Section 7-903 B.1.d.
Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the
extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant.
Refer to Section III of the application, Growth Management Quota
System Exemption for Essential Public Facilities.
Section 7-903 B.2.a.
The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the
underlying Zone District.
The applicant is not requesting an increase in the permitted
density.
Section 7-903 B.2.b.
In order to reduce wildfire, mudslide, and avalanche hazards;
enhance soil stability; and guarantee adequate fire protection
access, the density of a PUD shall also be reduced in areas with
slopes in excess of twenty (20%) percent in the following manner.
Not applicable.
Section 7-903 B.3.
The land uses permitted shall be those of the underlying Zone
District. Detached residential units may be authorized to be
clustered in a zero lot line or row house configuration, but multi-
family dwelling units shall only be allowed when permitted by the
underlying Zone District.
Refer to Section IV of the application, Other Amendment to a
Conditional Use.
Section 7-903 B.4.
The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying Zone
21
'
• •
District, provided that variations may be permitted in the
'
following:
'
a. Minimum distance between buildings;
b. Maximum height (including viewplanes);
C. Minimum front yard;
d. Minimum rear yard;
'
e. Minimum side yard;
f. Minimum lot width;
g. Minimum lot area;
h. Trash access area;
i. Internal floor area ratio; and
J. Minimum percent open space.
If a variation is permitted in minimum lot area, the area of any
lot may be greater or less than the minimum requirement of the
underlying Zone District, provided the total area of all lots, when
averaged, at least equals the permitted minimum for the Zone
'
District. Any variation permitted shall be clearly indicated on
the final development plan.
Variations are not requested.
Section 7-904 (the Aspen Land Use Regulations repeat this number)
'
The number of off-street parking spaces may be varied from that
required in the underlying Zone District based on the following
considerations.
Variations are not requested.
'
Section 7-905
The open space requirement shall be that of the underlying Zone
District. However, a variation in minimum open space may be
permitted if such variation would not be detrimental to the
character of the proposed Planned Unit Development (PUD), and if
the proposed development shall include open space for the mutual
benefit of all development in the proposed Planned Unit Develop-
ment (PUD) through a common park or recreation area. An area may
be approved as a common park or recreation area if it
a. Is to be used and is suitable for scenic,
landscaping, or recreation purposes; and
b. Is land which is accessible and available to all
dwelling units or lots for whom the common area is
intended.
A proportionate, undivided interest in all common park
'
and recreation areas shall be deeded in perpetuity to
each lot or dwelling unit owner within the Planned Unit
22
r
I
• 0
1
Development (PUD), together with a deed restriction
against future residential, commercial, or industrial
development.
Any plan for open space shall also be accompanied by a
legal instrument which ensures the permanent care and
maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and
communally owned facilities.
This section of the Regulations is not applicable.
Section 7-906
There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan a
landscape plan, which exhibits a well designed treatment of
exterior spaces. It shall provide an ample quantity and variety
of ornamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the
Aspen area climate.
A landscape plan has been submitted with the application.
Section 7-907
There shall be approved as part of the Final Development Plan an
architectural site plan, which ensures architectural consistency
in the proposed development, architectural character, building
design, and the preservation of the visual character of the City.
It is not the purpose of this review that control of architectural
character be so rigidly enforced that individual initiative is
stifled in the design of a particular building, or substantial
additional expense is required. Architectural character is based
upon the suitability of a building for its purposes, upon the
appropriate use of materials, and upon the principles of harmony
and proportion of the building with each other and surrounding land
uses. Building design should minimize disturbances to the natural
terrain and maximize the preservation of existing vegetation, as
well as enhance drainage and reduce soil erosion.
Architectural plans have been submitted with the application.
Section 7-908
All lighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or
hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands.
The lighting shall be in compliance with this standard.
Section 7-909
Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged.
23
r • •
I
This section of the Regulations is not applicable.
Section 7-910
The proposed development shall be designed so that adequate public
facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed
development at the time development is constructed, and that there
will be no net public cost for the provision of these public
facilities. Further, buildings shall not be arranged such that any
structure is inaccessible to emergency vehicles.
There are adequate public facilities to accommodate the proposal.
Section 7-911
a. Every dwelling unit, or other land use permitted in the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall have access to a public
street either directly or through an approved private road,
a pedestrian way, or other area dedicated to public or private
use.
b. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to permit
smooth traffic flow with controlled turning movement and
minimum hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Minor
streets within the Planned Unit Development (PUD) shall not
be connected to streets outside the development so as to
encourage their use by through traffic.
C. The proposed development shall be designed so that it will not
create traffic congestion on the arterial and collector roads
surrounding the proposed development, or such surrounding
collector or arterial roads shall be improved so that they
will not be adversely affected.
d.
Every residential building shall not be farther than sixty
(601 ) feet from an access roadway or drive providing vehicular
access to a public street.
'
e.
All non-residential land uses within the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) shall have direct access to a collector or
arterial street without creating traffic hazards or congestion
on any street.
f.
Streets in the Planned Unit Development (PUD) may be dedicated
to public use or retained under private ownership. Said
streets and associated improvements shall comply with all
pertinent City regulations and ordinances.
'
The
burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness
of the Development Application, and its conformity to the standards
and
procedures of this division and this chapter.
24
I
Traffic circulation to the site will not be changed.
u
L�
25
•
CITY
OF ASPEN
PRE
-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: Is --
OWNER'S NAME:
e_,
/7 C k Ca �o i,) lie_,,
SUMMARY
3.
Areas is which
types of reports
Applicant has been requested to respond,
requested:
Policy Area/
'
Referral Agent
Comments
t
1u
4.
Review is: (P&Z
Only) (CCOnly)C(P&Z
then to CC)
'
5.
Public Hearing:
''(YES) (NO)
'
6.
Number of copies
of the application
to be submitted:
7.
What fee was applicant requested to
pP �
sub
submit:/
q ?
��0 � S�-�'� �
8.
Anticipated date
of submission:
�
-�1.
9.
COMMENTS/UNIQUE CONCERNS: rl
i
J
frm.pre_app
•
1
I
1
CITY
303
February 27, 1990
Mr. Thomas M. Baker
Assistant Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Tom,
SPEN
ncil
-5W14IRFni Stration
303-920-5198 FAX
This letter is to authorize Glenn Horn to proceed with the GMQS exemption for
esstential public facilities, other amendments to a conditional use and, other an
amendment to a planned unit development. These processes are necessary for
the Parks and Golf Maintenance facility. Glenn Horn has been hired by the City for
the City of Aspen Recreation Department.
He will be working for Rich Coulombe, Golf Course Superintendent. Any corres-
pondence should be sent to Rich Coulombe as well as Glenn Horn.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
William S. Eft ng,
Acting City Manager
WSE:klm.23
k Im / mac /wp/ 19901etters/ IetL90.23
I
LTS
I
Aspen Golf Course
September 12, 1989
greater detail. From a playabiiity versus agronomic
standpoint, however, the reduction of Poa annua over the
long run would be a substantial improvement if the monthly
treatments do not reduce the putting quality below the
level as seen during the time of this visit. Again, the
putting quality was by no means unacceptable at this time.
Thatch Control
Due to regular topdressing and aerification the thick
layer of thatch noted in previous reports has now been
covered by a approximately 3/4 inch of quality sand. This
does not mean that the thatch layer should be forgotten,
but rather that improvements have been accomplished. As
demonstrated during the visit, the upper layer of sand is
much firmer and therefore offers a more consistent putting
surface. As the thatch continues to be covered with
topdressing material the need for intensive aerification
with 5/8 inch tines in both the spring and fall will no
longer be necessary. In fact, I am in agreement with your
plan to use 1/2 inch tines next spring followed by 3/8
inch tines next summer. The use of smaller tines is
certainly an indication of the progress which has been
made. Furthermore, eliminating the fall aerification also
reduces the risk of winter related problems.
As mentioned in last year's report, it is important to
realize that the frequency of light topdressing
application must be adjusted to compensate for the use of
paclobutrazol. Furthermore, it is vital to resist the
temptation to use light frequent topdressing as a sole
means of providing a smooth putting surface. The inherent
difference between the growth rates of Poa annua and
bentgrass will automatically disturb the uniformity of the
putting surface thereby making it impossible to provide
perfection at all times. Again, it seems evident that the
long term reduction of Poa annua is important to overall
success.
Soil Fertility
As always, the importance of routine soil testing cannot
be understated. Of greatest significance on these reports
is the soil pH, per cent base saturation of potassium, and
Page 3
Aspen Golf Course
September 12, 1989
the amount of phosphorous present in parts per million.
As a goal try to achieve a base saturation of potassium of
at least 4% to 71. This value is a function of the Cation
Exchange Capacity, the presence of potassium measured in
U�
SIn
parts per million and the atomic weight of this element.
regards to phosphorous, try to reach a level of at
least 25 parts per million. As your results from this
year's soil sampling become available, please feel free to
discuss this data with Jim Moore in greater detail.
Developing a record of soil fertility is one of the best
means of measuring the impact of your cultural programs.
'
Mowing Height Versus Mowing Equipment
As you continue to promote championship quality putting
greens it may become necessary to begin using walk behind
mowers. The initial signs of such needs is the
development of the triplex ring as you continue to mow at
the 1/8 inch height of cut. This ring is an indication
'
that the triplex mower is creating mechanical damage to
the low cut turf and is unable to provide the higher
levels of quality demanded by the membership. Remember,
achieving higher levels of quality on a day to day basis
requires extra effort from both the maintenance staff and
maintenance equipment, and must be supported in the
'
maintenance budget.
Greens Surrounds
In order to eliminate the lack of uniformity of the
bent/Poa annua rough surrounding the greens these areas
should be overseeded with perennial ryegrass. To
encourage good establishment the areas should be both
verticut and aerified prior to seeding. The recommended
rate for perennial ryegrass is 10-12 pounds per thousand
square feet. Since the parentage of most improved
perennial ryegrasses are fairly similar feel free to
choose a single cultivar or a blend of several cuitivars.
Before making any final decisions, however, please
contact your local university and determine if any single
cultivars show superior adaptation to your specific
climate. In most cases there is usually no significant
difference.
I Page 4
Aspen Golf Course
September 12, 1989
Managing New Greens
The general key to managing new putting greens so as to
prevent Poa annua invasion is to minimize open scars.
With this in mind, the following comments are offered for
USU A the future management of the new practice putting green:
1) Try to fill in open voids in the present green by
transplanting four inch plugs from the outer
perimeter towards the center. Once all areas have
been plugged simply adjust the mow line so that the
open holes on the green perimeter can fill at a
faster pace.
2) Try to maintain a vigorously growing bentgrass canopy
by providing appropriate amounts of nitrogen and
potassium. Along with using color as an indication
of adequate fertility carefully observe the amount of
spike marking. If you notice excessive marking, or
rather graininess you may find it more helpful to
apply higher rates of potassium rather than increase
your vertical mowing efforts. Again, try to achieve
at least a 4% to 7% base saturation.
3) Rather than be forced to remove Poa annua using
paclobutrazol (TGR) or other herbicides try to make a
special effort to hand weed Poa annua as soon as it
appears. This method has proven very successful at
Singietree CC in Vail, and over the long run will
provide the best possible results. Even though hand
weeding may seem old fashioned it is none the less
very effective.
Preventing Poa annua invasion on this new putting green
poses a significant challenge and I wish you well in your
future efforts.
TEES
Height of Cut
In a general sense I feel it is important to resist
agronomic challenges that could possibly encourage Poa
annua invasion. without question there is significant_
scientific evidence that reveals the relationship between
Page 5
Aspen Golf Course
September 12, 1989
'
the mowing height of Kentucky bluegrass versus its
competitiveness against Poa annua invasion. In short, as
the height of cut is reduced the ability of Kentucky
'
bluegrass to ward off Poa annua invasion is also reduced.
With this in mind, I am in full agreement with your plans
USGA
to maintain the current mowing height of 5/8 rather than
'
dropping to 1/2 inch. The risk of a lower height of cut
is simply too great and the possible improvement in
playing quality too small.
Overseeding
'
In addition to introducing perennial ryegrass into the
green surrounds, it would also be helpful to overseed the
heavily worn tees. Based on the success of the driving
'
range tee such a program can be easily justified.
'
FAIRWAYS
Fairway Aerification
'
In order to control thatch development on the fairways it
is important to continue conventional aerification along
with the annual use of your shatter core equipment.
Conventional aerification not only relieves soil
compaction, but also brings a small amount of soil to the
surface that can be re -incorporated as topdressing.
Adding a small amount of soil to the developing thatch
'
layer will help encourage microbial activity, regulating
the development of thatch. With respect to your new
lightweight mowing equipment, it would be best to follow
conventional fairway aerification with the use of your
retired fairway mower. This mower will be more tolerant
of the small pebbles brought to the surface and will spare
the smaller mowers. in addition to controlling thatch
with aerification, it was also encouraging to note the
purchase of vertical mowing equipment.
Poa annua
To be completely successful with your Poa annua
eradication program on the putting greens it will become
necessary to remove Poa annua from the fairways. As the
I
Page 6
Aspen Golf Course
September 12, 1989
lightweight mowers continue to encourage competition from
Kentucky bluegrass it may be possible to one day remove
the small amount of remaining Poa annua with the new
herbicide Prograss. To prepare for such an eradication
LT�
program, now would be a good time to begin experimenting
swith
this new herbicide on a small area. The recommended
dosage for established Kentucky bluegrass is to apply 0.45
pounds of active ingredient per acre (1/3 gallon per acre)
on three separate occasions during the fall. Since the
effectiveness of Prograss is uncertain at your particular
location I do not suggest applying this material to an
area greater than 150 square feet. Should you carry out
this work, try to choose an area with at least 50';
'
Kentucky bluegrass.
In closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank
the staff of Aspen Golf Course for their fine hospitality.
with so many topics being discussed in such a short period
of time, I greatly appreciate Mr. Coulombe's willingness
'
to discuss topics in an open atmosphere. Maintaining a
public facility with a wide range of membership
expectations is indeed a great challenge and I would like
'
to offer my full support. In addition to this visit, your
subscription to the USGA is supporting ongoing research to
meet the ever increasing demands of a diminishing water
supply and we thank you for your continuing support.
Sincerely,
'
Paul Vermeulen
Agronomist, Western Region
PV:kem
cc: Mr. Rich Coulumbe, Superintendent
Mr. Dominic Lanise, Assistant Superintendent
Mr. Bill Efting, Leisure Services Director
Mr. Dick Meeker, President MGA
Mr. Ernie Fyrwaid, Head Professional
The Honorable Mayor, Bill Sterling and Council
I
Page 7
1
•
COLORADO INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK SHARING AGENCY
950 South Cherry Strut Suits 706 . Oerwer, Colorado 80222
(303) 757.5475 . (600) 228-1t38
July 17, 1987
Ron Mitchell
City of Aspen
130 South Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Ron:
The visit to the City of Aspen was made Tuesday, June 9 and this report is provided
pursuant to CRSA's policy of assisting C1RSA member municipalities In their own loss
prevention efforts. The sole purpose of the visit and report is to help the City in
identifying general areas of loss prevention. The visit was not comprehensive and this
report is not intended to serve as a substitute for specialized techniccl inspections or
advice.
I first would like to extend my appreciation to George Robinson for his time and
cooperation during my audit. Below, I have listed some comments and recommendations
'
I made during my audit with George. If you have any questions concerning any of the
comments please do not hesitate to contact me.
City HC I I
1) Clecn up the boiler room and set a policy that nothing flommoole;combustible should
be shored in there at any time for whatever reason. During my audit, it was
cluttered with various paper items end other combustibles. Again, this needs to be
removed as soon as possibie and this practice stopped immediately.
2) Find the Hcion extinguisher that was purchases for the computer room a;,a^cve that
hung in place within the room. During my audit it could not be found anywhere
within the neighboring offices. Again, if a problem did arise, this needs to be easily
access ib Ie.
3) The City strongly needs to consider:
a) doing a load limit on the upper deck area where they're now storing numerous
records or
'
b) stop storing records up on the heo:er ventilation support. This was not built to
be a storage area and sooner or 'ater :t can give way and the for injury
potential
to not only the pub iic, but to amity employees 13 great.
'
July i it �70�
Page 2 . •
Skating Rink
1) Qvero ' housekeepirg policy needs to be set up. During my audit the bock
rrainte-once or -a seemed to be unorganized and debris lying all over. This needs to
e c leaned up -.3)AP.
2) 1 recommend having a noise level check done in the basement, considering the
gentleman that works there spends quite a bit of time in the basement area. 1 know
this is a workers' compensation area but I feel the City stIII needs to look at this
ASAP.
3) Installing a gate or continuing the fence to the wall will help prevent children from
straying into the maintenance area. I feel the potential for injury for them is great
and the City needs to strongly consider this recommendation. This would be at the
northeast corner of the skating rink.
'
Parks Shops
1) My recommendation here concerns the equipment that at present is not being
'
protected; I feel the City needs to consider building or installing bays for the
equipment that is now being stored outside. Equipment that is stored outside ages so
much quicker than equipment that does have some protection. So, in the long run, I
feel it would benefit the City to start protecting the equipment that is being used by
the park and recreation people instead of letting it sit in the open.
1) My next recommendation would be to also build a new storage building for the
'
chemicals and pesticides that are being used at the various parks and the golf
course. During my tour I was shown the building that is now housing the chemicals
and pesticides and I feel that a sturdier and more secure building needs to be used.
3) The City needs to consider looking at the stability of the present buildings that the
parks and recreation have, as for as break room and storage of some of the smaller
equipment. I could be wrong, but I think it would be on the City's best behalf that
they have a building official check this building out as to the stability of the
structure to be on the safe side.
Aspen Co If Shop
I) I recommend removal or repair of the front entrance and stairs. During my audit,
this wns in bad shape and was an accident waiting to happen. I feel that it is in such
shape that it presents a tripping hazard to the patrons entering or exiting this shop.
City Pool
1) The City should consider repairing the sidewalks leading to the pool. During my
1
audit, they were ;n poor shape and I feel, need to be looked at.
2) 1 sugge.• the lnstallc ,)n of grc-d fouit interruprors(CFls) in the locker rooms.
This would prevent anyone from being accidentally electrocuted or shocked.
3) 1 recommend filling in the wooden steps leading from the parking lot to the sidewalk
f
- r _.
July 17, 1987
Page 3 •
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
that goes to the pool. 1 feel that this is a tripping hazard and the City needs to
correct this problem ASAP.
Ron, I will be looking fc—mcrd 'o working with you in the future to help you establish
a strong loss control progrc i within your cummunity so you can continue to keep your
losses at a minimum. Again, 1'd like to extend my appreciation to George for his time
and cooperation and I'm looking forward to coming to Aspen soon.
Sincerely,
ohn H. Dunn
Loss Control Representative
JHD/gat
0 •
ASPEN GOLF ASSOCIATION
P. O. BOX 246
SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654
303-927-3273
Dear Golfer,
Please help improve the Aspen Golf Course by supporting the City of
Aspen Parks and Golf Department's land use application for a 2,160
square foot expansion of the Parks/Golf Course Maintenance and
Storage Facility. The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will
consider the land use application on Tuesday, April 17, 1990 at 5 PM.
You can support the application by speaking at the meeting or writing
to Welton Anderson, Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611.
Proper maintenance of the golf course begins with an adequate
facility for maintenance equipment. The existing facility is
inadequate. Following his 1989 inspection of the Aspen Golf Course,
Paul Vermeulen, Western region Agronomist of the United States Golf
Association (USGA), submitted the following report:
In all candor, the most shocking stop on our three hour
tour of the course was the maintenance facility. Having
visited well over 400 courses throughout the entire country
while employed by the USGA, I can state with great
confidence that such conditions are out of the ordinary.
Further more, the fact that such expensive equipment is
being stored outdoors during the winter should be more than
enough justification for additional facilities. Looking
ahead, it was certainly encouraging to learn that an
additional bay will be added to the current garage, however
this will by no means satisfy your overall storage needs.
As funds become available a larger maintenance facility
should be constructed.
Construction of the addition to the maintenance facility will greatly
help the golf course crew improve golf course quality. Please call
the Aspen-Pitkin Planning Office at 920-5090 to arrange to see a copy
of the maintenance facility plans. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Dick Meeker John Ham
President Secretary/Treasurer
00
N
ot...M .•.a�a�
a0NO wo,acoc^ c3;S�
L.�'4;•,Couyo,'T,co oud'L7nw�c«?.�� 0O
cd
O �cvEc.��ca'g0.a y b,caa
+�
co.�, i
' C Q C CO
C1. 'Sy �Q ° a 'O i i {r
can �+ �. cR% o o�Uw o
d 0
bv��[�.ca`�>�(sc°'Ooeo�g3x•vc«b
c o ° w n'0 o cob
c , , o
~ a,o.�p. co �',� Cam' 0 wU � �^O O �O �Dco
co O, O ... 5 . Ei o a co `.� C.)c ►Ti .., +� cO 6i :.:> ..� ' ca u Q w
.c �, d .1 ' . :=
l eo-0 cri y � y� o y ap Rb C H ;, Id>,
0 QpQQ
C C• X m y� q as ,g �' p G,ECj
�,n
b c�
o.o>'ox�'j^, ci bJ)•b�''
zd inca
� d � •c �, u o ..� .�v � �•c fA � � ca � � y � a�i a� � �" a�
Ca
N o ,..'r `a' " a M„ d o.:v ,`� Ca'
00
a~iC',0 csC,400Uai0o@"op.&
to Ej
y N y MCd
N
U` .�.cas�i ca03cd ca.�d�i3w3o aCS
10,
co w.0
o> 3 0 0 0
ypc:,�aaCi�c�a�ic�O.baci U�`��'a ��dd�
c o u 3 ° a u o 3 c a>i'o o o m 0
O tw poq 0 a A " y � 0 -0 --"a o
aoo u c -. a>i
CO
c° 3•Y ' �.� �'�'>.c 0 >> o o a,^y c �.� a) ca °0.c y.��,
0. G •C [ ] q ° a0i .0 ° c E >Nc� 7.
c mcau «.,.+>,oc., 3c .C�d au
0i t: 01 N +q o � O 0 .c ' V a
" V 6. O to y y c
O O of co . O V a) •in p 0
a >; c
o.�a'00 joa�i�"
� c
�•�G �� "�D�E o
cz
•N � .... � ai p' oou•� cn a� `� c
_o
� C ti CO 4)i CO Y > co
rA
[ co >
a0i .; v a, � a
•a.�,aCi�y
co E-
8cn°ovi0+0 �oumNc.°.
o•ty��o� �>���'.
o�c�•�o�-o•wcco�
�co to
to
c ��cdud
• E••c
bi
�•... Q C.ci O 3 a
• 'b co c > C O O • c0 a'�i
"� u a0 CO w ° i "Cw
-ads
aoEo �.>E�
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Engineer
Environmental Health Department
Parks Department
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
RE: City of Aspen Parks/Golf Maintenance Facility GMQS
Exemption, Conditional Use Amendment, PUD Amendment
Parcel ID# 2735-024-00-002
DATE: March 12, 1990
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Glenn Horn on behalf of the City of Aspen requesting approvals
for an addition to the parks/golf course maintenance and storage
facility.
Please review this material and return your comments to me no
later than April 2, 1990. Thank you.
0 ASPEN*PITKIN •
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
From: Environmental Health Department
Date: March 20, 1990
Re: City of Aspen Parks/Golf Maintenance Facility GMQS
Exemption, Conditional Use Amendment, PUD Amendment
Parcel ID# 2735-024-00-002
The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above -mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this office by the
Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office as stated in Chapter 24 of the Aspen
Municipal Code.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
The Parks/Golf Course Maintenance and Storage Facility is
currently served with public sewer provided by the Aspen
Consolidated Sanitation District. This conforms with Section 1-
2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On Individual Sewage
Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of public sewer
systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit the
installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to areas
that are not feasible for public sewers". It is our assumption
that the proposed expansion of the facility will also be serviced
by the Sanitation District.
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS
The Parks/Golf Course Maintenance and Storage Facility is
currently served with water provided by the Aspen Water
Department distribution system. This conforms with Section 23-
55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such projects "which use
water shall be connected to the municipal water utility system".
It is our assumption that the proposed expansion of the facility
will also be serviced by the municipal water system.
AIR QUALITY•
This application does not mention any woodstoves and we recommend
� U that the applicant set an example by foregoing use of a stove.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado H1611 303/920-5070
• ASPEN*PITKIN •
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OEPARTMENT
City of Aspen Golf Facility
March 20, 1990
Page 2
The applicant will need to give consideration to the Aspen Clean
Indoor Air Act in its design of the additional space.
Also to set an example, and to ensure compliance with National
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Colorado visibility standards,
the applicant should install compact fluorescent lights which
reduce air pollution. It takes more energy to power an
incandescent bulb than a fluorescent bulb. Therefore, carbon
dioxide and sulfur dioxide pollution is reduced at the point of
power generation by many pounds over lifetime of the bulbs.
The applicant will need to apply for a fugitive dust control plan
approximately 6 weeks before construction. The applicant will
have to commit to enough measures to ensure that dust does not
blow off the property or result in complaints. These measures
may include, but are not limited to, fencing around disturbed
areas, daily cleaning of Cemetery Lane with flusher truck and
scraper, watering of disturbed areas, placement of gravel along
the access road, and chemical treatment of disturbed areas.
As part of this expansion, the applicant should be required to
pave the access road/driveway to minimize dust from the traffic
into and out of the maintenance buildings. The parking/storage
area in the back of the current building should also be paved.
A mechanical engineer should be consulted to ensure that the
addition is designed so that emissions from vehicles will not
result in unhealthful levels of pollutants in the building.
NOISE•
Noise from this project can be expected to have an impact on the
immediate neighborhood during the construction phase.
The applicant shall design noise reduction into the
storage/maintenance facility as a responsibility to the
neighbors. This should involve an evaluation of all noise
generating equipment and design to mitigate any noise above that
allowed by City Ordinance.
Should complaints be registered with this office Chapter 16 Aspen
Municipal Code, titled Noise Abatement, will be the document used
in the investigation.
CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH LAWS:
None that are enforced by this department.
CONTAMINATED SOILS:
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-5070
ASPEN♦PITKIN •
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
City of Aspen Golf Facility
March 20, 1990
Page 3
The applicant is advised to contact this office for comment
should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during
the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials
off -site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy
metals being present in the soil.
This is not a requirement, but a request based on past experience
in dealing with mine waste and possible negative impacts to
humans.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado B1611 303/920-5070
• 0
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920-5090
March 12, 1990
Glenn Horn
Davis Horn Inc.
300 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: City of Aspen Parks/Golf Maintenance & Storage Facility
Dear Glenn,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that your application is complete.
We have scheduled your application for review by the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing on April 17,
1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm. The Friday before the
meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo
pertaining to your application is available at the Planning
Office.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner
assigned to your case.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: CITY OF ASPEN PARKS/GOLF COURSE MAINENANCE AND STORAGE
FACILITY PUD AMENDMENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, April 17, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an
application submitted by Glenn Horn on behalf of the City of
Aspen requesting PUD amendment approval in order to construct a
2,160 square foot addition to the existing facility. The
property is located at the northwest corner of Cemetery Lane and
SH 82 and is a part of Lot 1, Golf Course Subdivision. This
property is zoned Park.
For further information, contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5090.
s/C. Welton Anderson, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
Published in The Aspen Times on March 29, 1990.
City of Aspen Account.
•
CITY, ,ASPEN
1 U t a ena Street
t�"pen, Colorado 8 1611,
30�'20-5042 - it Z -Council
303-920-5199-C dm-inistration
303-920-5198 FAX
February 27, 1990
Mr. Thomas M. Baker
Assistant Planning Director
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Dear Tom,
This letter is to authorize Glenn Horn to proceed with the GMQS exemption for
esstential public facilities, other amendments to a conditional use and, other an
amendment to a planned unit development. These processes are necessary for
the Parks and Golf Maintenance facility. Glenn Horn has been hired by the City for
the City of Aspen Recreation Department.
He will be working for Rich Coulombe, Golf Course Superintendent. Any corres-
pondence should be sent to Rich Coulombe as well as Glenn Horn.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
William S. Efringg,
Acting City Manager
WSE:klm.23
klm /mac/wp/ 1990lettm/lett.90.23
THE CITY OF ASPEN
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO.81611-1975
0
v � Ew FRoM S1-� c��p s cA� r�LsD �3E 5��
r ROn 8'2_. AND GOLF Cov RSE
-%J6-
R{-j
I IV,
voi64-- A;:!t i;l
WWI
ft
IRW I
La
Y
oew
It-ZITORRGrG oF' NEw P)Uow5
;I ,111111111�
P, 7�
WlVJTr-2VlE�S
A -A
Rv
/ail It
*a.
Tt,G
7i�►�I,
ems, «t . ,r�-►: r �
Alk
i'�_`�� T
j�'E�T?SoNAL.S'1aRRG� #
A . �,.. ` moo.• r" f r 4 ��,br � ♦ �.. •:y �
yr
LO
t,
' + A �,
F i
4 . � a� 'y
,,�..�•_
_ y � �
Y �r� - � ' , �.,
,.. - a
. _ � �,.
` S d
� �_- ___.
-7�,9�
8,
N
a
N -7'° k
1 �
1
71M
of MEem
\ r-rMAIN ALONG FiCaj
I N I t,L r1/ �'fzAh�S j� Alert I p
Tbp
W G I i `
5 rl�uc.F.
POND
4.OLA I e ON A, t I� 1
Tcv RF M 0% I r-4
�' \�:(R.R.T1E O\••�: ..;.\ \ cam,
� TAiNlrl4 '' `
Far
- �\ s Hill. [. �♦.S'';. \
A�eucl pFr1.M •' ,
9y owtiela-
\ 3 'T.o.Go1.1G• \\ \
a H t
\ \ I L- C , -
hl0"rIE
OAw �F-IPPING ,Ar��scv�IryG,.
0Y oWN�Ft.
OZ dl pry' Lat A,,'iorl OP xi�TING
UTI -I it py.
0 6 �k p_ La�ToN d FLU A'rG USF
A� FL9 � 0I 4 V w/N 1ew GL.p& • owr
M
'_%b'ti
�xI51'INa �Fr��AM
�XIYTIN� wri'�R., 5�w'ESZ � C,v�s
MAIµs ,A oN4 GfM�Tt (Z7
�ealF-f I,pcA'TIoN. w/ I.Ir� LI i'`t'
I
I
lqoo
SITE PLAN
SCALE: l "= 20'-0"
40 150 I D 'Ic
H
18"
m
REVISION
1.f1
Ln
W
Ln
1�
Q %
I
M
V
o
w
O
w
_J
LU
-
�V
�O
00
8
a
O
LL
O
tillnow
U
Z
Z
W
u
�
`n
W
m
0
•L
O
V
a:
E9
2
13
J
2 M
aJW
0
N0U
4E92
0
Q
cc
OO
LL,�z
ONE
0
2
Z
N�Q
a
Q
DRAWING
JOB NO. Eti�j34
OATE I
SHEET NO
IA1.11
SHEET OF
7910
7905
7900
7895
7890
�qu �NELK�p-�I�
pLAtE \ �
�I
LJ
II �I II
Irr No�� nRII,��D
EXISTING
HOUSE
5
bA G K To 1 K Or AW,61;3
2'-lye"
r-1L 2 Tom'
Se' AL-e� : I" =
EXISTING BERM , .I
EXISTING &
TRANSPLANTED
FOLIAGE
NEW MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING
FgATTlw+�� ! T 7'T��
SITE PROFILE A —A
SCALE: 1 "= 20*-0"
1..IAT'��P RooF GASKET II
11/42I x 1114" x I/4'I
� L-� uous
V4i1 �' ANOHoI�
12'I O G.
BIKE PATH
CEMETERY
LANE
Co a
8 LAW - KNon A� � I ~� GJ. I �
IZA'(ItL, I'x� T�ENci-1
I N -
12- 4 `i 9 1- aX L,7
jo,R2ut,u
3/4 ° X 3/4 n Gor1( E�A(Z o N 6
WLWLD a.
!
�q 11-6,II
� LA, KN o/-
� G R1lf I WG I x8
G J. .1• {; G.J.
d
6
0
4 ( ° � V �1-�V I Fob 2t ER-
LOCATION
V I,
I \ r%'11L IL AIL
s
jM L d T�2P. 5 fi�ro ram! !♦ 1 M UP 'I'fZA `7 LTi
u�RIj�Y w� I`IF'G lo'i �
i
G1 QA"�E
MAMHoI.E
J 4-1 +P--6044 I 8 I!I
O (Z E621.IA L
0 a
N C-?'
@ -`: , . � D.� r - row ._�' b •
V ERIF(�
10
J
T�Nc•.11� Ro.T� � \
trtF4 D1MEN6[o►J
- - -
REVISION
CO`
Irv1
O
rvll
Wuj
H
OO
Lu
J
W
F
r01)
8
a
cl
0
LL
0
U.
Z
z
Z
Lij
CL
V
W
m
�
O
m
O
V
u
2
0
J
2
a, J W
O
N13v
QE9Z
o
CC
Q
Oo
LLz
p
2
W
H�Q
vat
a
a
F
WING
� iP I t-�
JOB NO
OATE
SHEET NO
IA1.21
Ni vW AVV'-rlOnl
721�On
7 SCALE: 1 /4" = 1'-0"
- r ow Avvrriot-J OX'G 01tc2l�l
GV GV E� Gv GV
Al I Urrf' -Kh �- & -rye 8"�Y
I ,
'ye \ ? Z
�q I TAP
A�
ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1 /8" =
�)'G,, PI--DG.
I
cIAF-Aa 1
I
P>A_
worzl�KoP
I
/
�ov�
I
' U . i7oo rZ
I
i
o�jor.
1
\,n
I
'
�
I
I
I
I
AE7
J
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
(
I
I
I
REVISION
o
Ln
W
=
V
u,
m
o
w
O
g
w
w
I—
(mil
Z
IA
a
LL
o
Z
z
w
w
V
W
_J
cr.
X
m
V
O
CL
v
Z
0
J
5
Z m
WLL
aJ�
o
NO
a(9zO
a
Q
J
LLW2O/'�
0N�-
V
�Y2
a
W
a
a
EET NO
A2' .
I
�EET
OF