The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.585 Cemetery Ln.A33-95J U V 8 0 . Â»02/judz - 1 U A t I , 4 l 1,1 CASE STATUS SHEET Case No. Representative' s Name: 4&46 79&1404 9 242Â«4 Â£26~uy CoA 94/ke V . Â¢ 24 9 ; Jr "r - .â€¢ t,1 6 , rl/>2 - Representative' s Phone: 470 4721 ,) 5724~ 11(T/,1 Z 0, 2 4 Fax: 5712 , DATE ACTION OR ACTIVITY 600\~emilt Â· 4119*t Â£040 4:6 935 59&6 a/44 04- - f mtÂ· 49 718 An. /. zim -/ik. r I 'f I. ,f I ~1'Vt'De r. f f TI /:1 1 '? 0 9, ' 6 , CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 3 /21/95 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. DATE COMPLETE: 3/7, -2- 21 3 5-,11- 09 -001 Agz,-9*5' STAFF MEMBER: 1 PROJECT NAME: City of Aspen, Parks and Golf Main. Facility / af) 56451201~ 14-~~ 14.-4+(11Â»-r Project Address: 585 Cemetery Lane 6/n& 6 6- b. , 4 Legal Address: dintl luc . APPLICANT: City of Aspen Applicant Address: 585 Cemetery Lane /- REPRESENTATIVE: Rebecca Baker or George Robinson Ripplf rv Representative Address/Phone: 920-5126 ,. -16 AS pul Aspen, CO 81611 720--,(34 FEES: PLANNING $ 24177 *il:n # APPS RECEIVED 10 ENGINEER $ # PLATS RECEIVED HOUSING $ ENV. HEALTH $ TOTAL $ 29971-. TYPE OF APPLICATION: STAFF APPROVAL: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: x P&Z Meeting Date ~~2-. PUBLIC HEARING: ~ NO VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO CC Meeting Date Itt' K ~11- PUBLIC HEARING: YES ~~ VESTED RIGHTS: YES 45 DRC Meeting Date ~ (~ REFERRALS: City Attorney Parks Dept. School District x City Engineer Bldg Inspector Rocky Mtn NatGas x Housing Dir. x Fire Marshal CDOT x Aspen Water Holy Cross Clean Air Board C/J city Electric Mtn. Bell Open Space Board Envir.Hlth. x ACSD x Other PPRG Zoning Energy Center Other 1~11 DATE REFERRED: , , /V INITIALS: Â£i\4 DUE: FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 3~/16'j Â£14> INITIAL: 12]4 City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env. Health Housing Open Space Other: FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: U J MEMORANDUM TO: Rebecca Schickling, Assistant Director, Parks Scott Smith, Gibson-Reno Architects (135 5*5 FROM: Christopher Bendon, Pl anner RE: City of Aspen Parks and Golf Maintenance Facility DATE: 24 January, 1997 This memo is to describe items needed for the City's approval process and to establish a rough schedule for the Parks and Golf building we talked about on 1.21.97. Final Submittal: 1 have included a copy of the required application packets you will need. I have also included a list ofthe items needed for final approval that were mentioned in the concept phase. We talked about all of these items in our meeting on Tuesday and I haven't come across any additional submittal requirements that you would need. We also talked about non-required items that would aid your case, and I have listed those as well. Required: 0 A completed application package for GMQS, Conditional Use, and PUD, Much of this will be a repeat of your conceptual phase text. D Site improvement survey by a Colorado registered land surveyor 0 Final architectural plan with building elevations and description of building materials. O Detailed lighting plan showing placement, light cast, and a description oftiming. Il Detailed landscape plan showing placement, species, and phasing. Il Storm drainage plan 3 Final site plan showing building location, circulation, parking, trash/recycle area, bike racks/storage, oil/sand separators, fertilizer storage and leakage prevention plan, and any improvements to the golf course. 0 Conceptual sidewalk/curb/gutter and paving plan This can be accomplished by agreeing to be party to any district improvements. Engineering is very familiar with this text as a condition of approval. Â¤ Housing mitigation plan for 1.8 employees This 1.8 mitigation means that the employee unit being provided for on-site will need to be at least a one bedroom apartment (1.75 employees). This unit will also have to fall into one of the four affordable housing categories. This should be based on the gross household income of the expected tenant(s). An agreement with the housing authority will have to be made if the Parks department wants it's employees to have the first right of refusal when the apartment becomes available. Depending on the category of the unit, a one bedroom apartment needs 600 to 700 square feet of livable space. Non-Required: There are no required setbacks for the Park zone district or for PUD. Normally a use similar to the abutting property would mean a mirror image of the adjacent setbacks. Because this is not a similar use, the setbacks are discussed in the conceptual phase. Originally the concept provided for a building 150' from the property line. It sounds like the final plan will be significantly different and P/Z will want to know what the distance to the property line will be. This is where it becomes important that the neighbor is agreeable to the latest plan. Letters of approval from neighbors, community groups are very helpful. 4 t fl 1 . Post-itÂ® Fax Nr 7671 Date 00- A#s . ~ To *al. 4;mtÂ·14 From '14,14 /861*A Co./Dept. Co. Phone # Phone # 410 272, Fax # * EPHÂ® Fax # A perspective rendering of the building from Hwy. 82 and from the neighbors property showing proposed massing, the materials, and landscape treatments would be helpful. Possible Schedule: Financial Meeting Community Meeting Complete Submission Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Week 1 Planner checks for complete submission and calls applicant if there are problems. Case number assigned. P/Z scheduled. Noticed. Formal letter to applicant describing process. Week 2 Goesto DRC Review Referral agencies Week 3 Week 4 DRC Final Back from Ref. Week 5 Final Planning PAZ Packet Memo to P/Z Prep./Dist. Week 6 Plan/Zoning Modifications Commission Week 7 Week 8 Pre-Notice for public hearing Week 9 City Council 1 st Reading - Consent Week 10 Week 11 City Council 2nd Reading - Public Hearing 1 have provided for some 'slop' in this schedule. DRC usually takes two weeks but for this large of a project they will probably want three. This process could be longer if either P/Z or Council want to continue their discussion to a followiiig session. After the second reading by Council it takes five days for the approval to be official, but you can usually request a building permit the day after Council's approval. As far as bidding the project before approval ask David Hauter, Asset Management, if it is okay to advertise while the project is under consideration. -* 42.-Zrn 4 -_ 4 wa per Fr i Iwhiti- 46 + /7444 16563 -014/ r.,AA< 2 (bo / 1~iR]p-_ fiv.~1__ Bff,04 / 9.20, lutÂ¥4-)_CO f 4~ bjuv'be a Pz, 20- f {Aff 4 j 4 7 4*6 Rt ZI ' mb-10 $ M 6 [" 82 049 -C & 030*47 Tz _ *lie 1*1 A . /441~66 *Uy 41 M. 1 pwil U.Â»41- 70*26 046 -7.r .tti --X=7-e=U===.P 540 L i 'Pro[164 GPD .03 'f~* / Ow 1 8- A r < /- -1 911_ , -UU *A 4 90_\ fl{ 6&*43.49 1 0 ft Ir- Ill _4*ff LI 6,4 44 90 1 " Ork iao &_pk**#4 vwl* -, + 1 - 11 12Â¢UIP 1919,5 _ (94) -- 510(Mu~ fra _JA *r,p 11 - 1 1 1 1 14 g~?2,*__---4Ed A. 4 '~44 e" 411Â« Ab 6-- 6,41.- 1 1. 4102 1/PO.E. /4* 2% i. . Â»* 06 BQJÂ® 11Â« 413* 04 ~ 41+169*4 - 1 44& 44* )464_ 9 *M+0*1.% - w*44 __we Â»l -av'* - 8/Â»e r/â‚¬i,"Al Imp-TI+MI fz, Lu Ida<*~r (Â¥ ** 11 RAM 4, Cb 7 *fÂ»4- +6 0/ . V 44-4*. e f* f*B_ '0 Lakiw~ 2Â© 00 OrR _7)0 AN -24 1**A/0 42/ I. CITY OF ASPEN LAND USE APPLICATION FEES $245 FLAT FEE Conditional Use for Accessory Dwelling Unit (P&Z) Subdivision Exemption - Condominiumization (Com Dev Director) $450 DEPOSIT No Step Exempt ESA Development (Com Dev Director) 644 co *41 Exempt GMQS Development (Com Dev Director) 4 4141 Insubstantial Temporary Use (Com Dev Director) Insubstantial Amendment (Com Dev Director) Subdivision Exemption - Lot Line Adjustment (Com Dev Director) GMQS Exemptions (Com Dev Director) â€¢ Remodeling, restoration or reconstruction of existing commercial. lodge or multi-family buildings â€¢ Historic Landmarks (does not increase existing FAR or net leasable square feet) â€¢ Detached single-family or duplex dwelling unit â€¢ All development not classified as "tourist accommodations", "residential", or "commercial/office" â€¢ Historic Landmark Lot Split â€¢ Expansion of existing commercial or office uses of less than 250 net leasable square feet â€¢ Enlargement of historic landmark that develops not more than one residential dwelling or 3 hotel. lodge. B&B. boardinghouse, roominghouse or dgrmitory units. . M. 10 0.4-tur AFF.,2, $1,080 DEPOSIT One Step * Conditional Use (P&Z) except Accessory Dwelling Unit 29*4 -9 Special Review (P&Z) ESA (Stream Margin, 8040 Greenline, Hallam Lake Bluff. Mountain View Plane (P&Z) *GMQ S Exemption (Growth Management Commission/P&Z) â€¢ Historic Landmarks (GMC) â€¢ Expansion of existing commercial or office building of 250-500 net leasable square feet â€¢ Change in use - residential/tourist accommodation (GMC), Commercial (P&Z) â€¢ Accessory Dwelling Units (GMC - on parcel with existing SFR or duplex, or in newly constructed multi-family) â€¢ Change in use/Lodge Expansion (P&Z) Subdivision Exemption (Lot Split or Historic Landmark Lot Split) (CC) Vested Rights Extension (CC) Temporary Uses (CC) . 4 . .. J I. 52,160 DEPOSIT Two Step GMQS Allocation (P&Z/CC) Text or Map Amendment (P&Z/CC) 6 6 46,0 GMQS Exemptions (P&Z/CC) â€¢ Construction of essential community facilities â€¢ Lot Split ($1,080) â€¢ Affordable Housing â€¢ Accessory uses in mixed use development â€¢ Free market residential, AH associated Subdivision (P&Z/CC) Three Step Designation of Historic Landmark or District (HPC/P&*CC) Four Step SPA or PUD (P&Z/CC (conceptual) P&Z/CC (final)) *Requires deposit at conceptual and at final. Six Step Significant Development of Historic Landmark or in Historic District in conjunction with SPA or PUD (HPC/P&Z/CC/HPC/P&Z/CC) HPC $62 Exempt Historic Development (Staff) $120 Minor Development of a Historic Landmark or in a Historic District (HPC) $1205 Demolition, Partial Demolition, or Relocation of a Historic Landmark or in a Historic District (HPC) -- $300 Significant Development o f Historic Landmark or in Historic District - Under 1,000 square feet (HPC for both conceptual and final review) $600 Significant Development of Historic Landmark or in Historic District - Over 1,000 square feet (HPC for both conceptual and final review) 1/7/97 RESOLUTION NO. ~)~--- (SERIES OF 1995) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF f ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE PARKS AND GOLF DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND OFFICE, ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, the Aspen Parks and Golf Department has submitted a Planned Unit Development review application to expand their office and maintenance facility at the Golf Course; and WHEREAS, the Department requested a four step review process to ensure that their design proposals would be found acceptable before full architectural drawings were developed; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did review the conceptual proposal at their May 2, 1995 public meeting; and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the proposal was a necessary expansion and that the conceptual proposal was the least impactive to the surrounding neighborhood, users of the golf course and Highway 82; and WHEREAS, the Commission amended the conditions of approval, identified those items that must be included in the final PUD application and recommend to Council conceptual PUD approval; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the conceptual application at a duly public noticed meeting; and WHEREAS, Council has considered the conditions of approval as amended by the Commission and the Commission's recommendation. 1 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen City Council that it does hereby approve the conceptual PUD development proposal for the expansion of the Parks and Golf office and maintenance facility 4 ..2 with the,following conditions: ./4 1. A final architectural plan with elevations of all proposed - buildings including identification of building materials shall be included in the submitted final PUD application. 2. A detailed lighting plan and landscape plan shall be included in the final PUD application. 3. A housing mitigation plan shall be provided to mitigate 1.8 employees in the submitted final PUD application. 4. A storm drainage plan shall be included in the submitted final PUD application. 5. A conceptual sidewalk/curb/gutter and paving plan shall be developed with the Engineering Department and submitted for review during final PUD review. 6. A revised site plan shall be included in the final PUD application and shall include: a. trash/recycle area and bike storage/racks; b. on-site parking spaces; and c. relocated 15th Tee and berm near the Tee. 7. Oil and sand separators shall be installed where vehicles are serviced and stored. All chemical/fertilizer storage must be designed to prevent leakage into the public sewer system. 8. The four inch sewer service line shall be replaced. 9. The project shall install an approved automatic sprinkler system. 10. The application for final PUD review shall include the following items: a. detail description of building material b. detailed landscape plan c. a percentage break-out of golf use and parks use of the facility d. analysis of equipment and depreciation costs e. elevations of the proposed building including heights f. employee mitigation plan 2 11. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions Of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED by the Councill at a regularly scheduled meeting June 12, 1995. BY: John Bennett, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado at a meeting held ~Aa. 13 , 1995. fÂ«rotj4Â«N Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 3 - ViC- MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Managerft Al< // \11 F Â£ 471 THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director&,/ FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: June 12, 1995 RE: City of Aspen Parks and Golf Maintenance Facility Expansion - Conceptual PUD Review - Resolution # 3*-- SUMMARY: The Parks and Golf Departments have proposed an expansion to the existing maintenance/storage facility and an expansion to their offices. The property is zoned Park with a PUD overlay. Because of the extensive nature of the proposal this is a substantial amendment to the existing PUD development plan. Please refer to the attached application for further review, Exhibit A. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to Council approval of the conceptual PUD review for the expansion. APPLICANT: City of Aspen Parks Department LOCATION: 585 Cemetery Lane, eastern edge of the Aspen Golf course at the intersection of Cemetery lane and Highway 82. ZONING: Park with PUD (Planned Unit Development) overlay APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicants request to expand the current maintenance/storage facility and expand the office space. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments, Exhibit B. In addition, staff has received written input from interested citizens, which is also attached as Exhibit B. PROCESS: PUD review is either substantial or insubstantial. Although a substantial amendment to an existing PUD development plan is typically a two step review process, the applicants have requested a four step review because of the significant change to the existing conditions. P&Z then Council will review the proposal at a conceptual level (steps 1 & 2). Then the P&Z and Council will review a final development proposal (steps 3 & 4). Public hearings occur at steps two & three. 1 GMQS Exemption review is required for the expansion of an essential public facility. This review will occur at steps three and four. Conditional use review is required for a park maintenance building in the Park zone district. This is a P&Z public hearing at step three. ---- STAFF COMMENTS: A. Project Description - The Department is proposing to construct an additional 9,000 square feet of storage space at the maintenance facility site to house approximately 115 pieces of equipment and other miscellaneous items. In addition, the development plan proposes approximately 1,000 square feet of additional office space. The design of the new maintenance building is "L" shaped with a shed roof and will be constructed on the interior of the berm by the 15th Tee. The maximum height of the building will not exceed 18 feet. The berm may be moved 20-30 ft. and the Ladies Tee relocated resulting in a better design of the Tee. The relocated berm will be revegetated. According to the application, the building will have simple garage bay doors on the interior of the yard. The portion of the building facing the golf course will be approximately 230 ft long. The east/west axis of the building, facing Red Butte, Will be approximately 150 ft. in length. The depth of the building is proposed to be 30-45 ft. A gate will be located at the entrance to the golf course at the service road. The small storage shed next to the office Will be demolished as part of this redevelopment. The office proposal will expand the existing office to the north connecting with the new storage building. The expansion will provide additional office space, file storage, a small conference room and ADA bathroom. Existing conditions find 3 supervisors sharing 85 sq. ft., 2-3 golf employees in 70 sq. ft., and 4 other employees sharing 90 sq. ft. The map filing area is in the bathroom as well as employee amenities such as a refrigerator, coffee machine etc. Filing cabinets are scattered throughout the office. The Department has considered several design iterations during the development of this proposal over the last two years. Please see attached alternatives, Exhibit D. The proposal that has been submitted for review is the design that works best for the Department for several reasons: 2 * it further defines and contains the maintenance area; * it can be will concealed by landscaping; * it presents a more aesthetic appearance to the golfers and the Highway; * it uses the existing berm; * it provides better security with a gate at the service road and is setback from Cemetery Lane; * it provides easy access to the bays for deliveries and turning radius'; * the one story design enables easy access to stored equipment and supplies; and * no removal of existing vegetation is required for redevelopment. The Parks Department will review other design proposals at the meeting ols requested by Council. A new entrance was proposed further down Cemetery Lane to eliminate the crossing of the bike path and the dangerously close proximity to the Hgh. 82/Cemetery Lane intersection. The proposal has been withdrawn as a priority due to neighbors concerns. However, the Engineering Department has suggested that the new entrance be relocated further down Cemetery Lane (beyond the Parks proposed entrance) for safety reasons. Employee housing is not proposed on site as the Department believes that no new employees will be added with the expansion. Staff also believes that this is a threshold issue to be considered at conceptual review. B. Site Description - The specific location of the Parks and Golf facilities is approximately 8 acres of the 182 acres of the Golf Course Subdivision. Currently, a 4,160 sq. ft. maintenance/storage building, a 520 sq. ft. office building, a 375 sq. ft. pump house, and a 450 sq. ft. storage shed are all located on the site. The office/maintenance area is bordered on the north by a single family residence, Cemetery Lane and a bike/pedestrian trail to the east, Highway 82 and a bike/pedestrian trail to the south, and the municipal golf course to the west. Two RFTA bus stops are within close proximity of the area, one on Cemetery Lane and the other on Highway 82. The entrance to the facility is off of Cemetery Lane approximately 50 feet from the Hgh. 82 and Cemetery Lane intersection. Approximately 16 parking spaces are provided for employees and 4-6 spaces for the general public. Three irrigation ponds and ditches are on site, several berms surround the property, and bike trails border the site on Hgh. 82 3 and Cemetery Lane. Thick vegetation buffers the site from Cemetery Lane and the berms are landscaped. C. Background - The golf course was purchased in 1971. The purchase included the golf course, Plumtree ballfield, Happy Hearth Inn/Red Roof Inn (now Truscott Housing), Tot Lot Park, Maroon Creek Park, Bugsy Barnard Park and the Parks and Golf offices and maintenances area. The maintenance and office facilities have occurred on the site since 1976 when the operations moved to the site from the Water Plant. In 1985 a formal PUD plat was recorded. In 1986, the Parks Department proposed a 9,000 sq. ft. addition to the maintenance facility but withdrew the application due to opposition by the neighbors and a critical P&Z review. Direction was provided to the Department to accurately access the physical plant needs and study other potential sites. The results of the study indicated that the existing site is the best solution. A detailed list of employees and equipment used by the Department is included as Exhibit 7 in the attached application. In addition, a list of the Department's recreational responsibilities is attached, Exhibit C. In 1990, a substantial PUD review and approval was granted for additional storage space of 2,160 sq. ft. That addition provides storage for equipment repair/maintenance, agricultural and chemical storage, a wood shop and dry storage area/employee locker room. The City Shop Master Plan that was conducted in 1992 evaluated all the storage needs of the municipality. The study was conducted to primarily assess the ability of the expanded city shop to meet storage/maintenance needs of the City. The study indicated that only Streets Department requirements could be accommodated at the new shop. The study also demonstrated that the Parks Department needed approximately 7,000 sq. ft. of heated storage and 2,000 sq. ft. of covered storage. In addition, 1,000 sq. ft. of additional office space was required. The Parks Department has held several neighborhood meetings to review expansion proposals. The Department has presented the proposal to the City's Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) to request funding for the proposal. The BRC approved the funding. The Golf Committee has also reviewed and supports the expansion proposal. ---------- PUD REVIEW: 4 I. Pursuant to Section 24-7-903.8.1, the General Requirements for PUD plan review are as follows: 1. (a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. RESPONSE: The Philosophy statement of the Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan states that "our community' s active and passive recreational needs must be constantly reassessed and addressed in order to maintain one of the most valued features of the Aspen area." The recently adopted Parks, Recreation and Open space master plan addresses the maintenance facility need in the implementation section of the Plan: "The City of Aspen needs an indoor facility to store and repair park maintenange equipment and machinery. The maintenance facility should consist of a building adequate for maintaining tucks and machinery, storage space, indoor parking space, restrooms and an office space." The proposed expansion of the Parks maintenance facility and office space is consistent with the need of the program as identified in the Master Plan and will enhance the Department's ability to "maintain one of the most valued features of the Aspen area." (b) The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. RESPONSE: Visual impacts of the expansion are intended to be minimal. The applicants will utilize existing berms to shield the new buildings and will upgrade the surrounding landscape to reduce visual impact. The Parks Department has designed an expansion that has evolved through neighborhood input and comments received at the PPRG meeting (only one PPRG member was present but surrounding residents were also present). As noted above, the applicants have several renditions of the proposed expansion. Those alternatives will be presented at the meeting. The use of the 8 acres will not change with the expansion. In addition, the expansion Will house existing equipment and personnel. (c) The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. RESPONSE: The proposed expansion is totally within the land area that is currently used by the Parks and Golf Department. The ability to store equipment inside will enhance the appearance of the equipment yard. The only adjacent residence is a single family home to the south and is buffered from the yard by landscaped 5 berms. A significant portion of the berms have been landscaped by that neighbor. (d) Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: A GMQS Exemption review for an essential public facility shall be reviewed by the Commission and Council at final review, steps 3 & 4. A GMQS Exemption does not negate employee mitigation requirements. However, an applicant may request a waiver which Council could grant. Although, the Housing Office recommends a mitigation for the 1,000 square foot office expansion, the applicant has not proposed employee mitigation stating that the office expansion is to house current employees that are located in cramped office space. II. Section 24-7-903.B.2 addresses density standards for PUD review. a. General. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: The density will not be increased with the proposed expansion. III. Section 24-7-903.B.3 states that land uses shall be those of the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: A parks and golf maintenance facility is a conditional use in the Park zone district. Conditional use review will be conducted by the P&Z at step 3 of the application. However, if the P&Z expresses a strong dissatisfaction to the expanded use or the current use of this location, it is a conceptual issue that should be discussed at this meeting before final review. IV. Section 24-7-903.B.4 addresses dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirement shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in the following: minimum distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor area ratio, and minimum percent open space. RESPONSE: The adopted Golf Course PUD plan did not specify bulk and area requirements for the site. The proposed maximum height of the building is 18 feet and the additional storage area is 9,000 sq. ft. and 1,000 sq. ft. for the office. The total floor area on the 8 acre site is 15,130 sq. ft. with a floor area ratio of .04. 6 The existing storage building is setback from Cemetery Lane by approximately 80 feet. The new building will be approximately 250 feet from Cemetery Lane. From the property of the adjacent residence the existing building is setback approximately 90 feet and the end of the new building will be approximately 150 feet away from the neighbors property line. The adjacent neighborhood is zoned R-15. The required front yard setback is 25 feet and the side yard setback is 10 feet (there is no open space requirement in the R-15). The Parks maintenance and office use well exceeds the dimensional requirements of the adjacent R-15 zone district. V. Section 24-7-903.B.5 addresses the amoulk of parking provided on the site. Parking may be varied through the PUD review process taking into consideration the type of use, parking needs, time periods of use, availability of public transit and other transportation facilities and the proximity of the development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities. RESPONSE: There are 16 parking spaces for employees and 4-6 spaces for the general public. The application states that the proposed development will not require additional parking. The expansion is not intended to increase the number of employees but to provide for existing equipment and better offices for existing personnel. The site is located adjacent to two RFTA bus routes. One of the primary bike/pedestrian routes in the City passes through the property. The City provides free RFTA bus passes for employees. The Engineering Department accurately pointed out that a employee bike fleet and sufficient bike storage area is not provided or discussed in the application/site plans. VI. Section 24-7-903.B.6 states that open space shall comply with the underlying zoning or may be varied by the PUD review. Response: There is not a specific open space requirement in the Park zone. All proposed development will occur in existing maintenance yard and outdoor storage area. No existing open space will be disturbed as part of this redevelopment. THRESHOLD ISSUES - There are several issues that staff believes should be discussed at this conceptual level. Following each issue is the Planning and Zoning Commission's response: 1. As part of the design process, the Parks Department and their architect, Glenn Rappaport, prepared several design alternatives. These alternatives were discussed at neighborhood meetings and the 7 PPRG meeting. The submitted application provides, in the Department's opinion, the best design for their purposes. However, the Council may elect to review the other proposals. In addition, the adjacent neighbor, Bill Sharp, has included an alternative in his attached letter, Referral Comments Exhibit B. RESPONSE: The Commission differed in their opinion of the proposal, but in general supported the design proposed by the Parks Department. Commission member comments were: * the long expanse of the wall and the impact of the wall on golfers and neighbors; * an expansion is necessary and the proposal was the most practical and straightforward; * maintenance of the lower height was appropriate; * the central area for equipment movement appeared to work well for the Department 2. Originally, the applicants proposed to relocate the entrance to the Departments facilities. The relocated entrance was further down Cemetery Lane. There was substantial neighborhood opposition to moving the entrance closer to the adjacent residence. The applicants would like to restudy the relocated entrance. RESPONSE: Although there may be some compelling reasons to relocated the entrance that is appears to be an area that has not been extensively studied. The Commission also agreed that when the entrance to Aspen is relocated or redesigned that the entrance to the Parks Department discussion would be more appropriate at that time. 3. A GMQS Exemption for essential public facilities does not negate the requirement to provide employee housing. The applicants are not proposing housing mitigation with the additional office square footage. Although a GMQS Exemption will be reviewed at steps 3 & 4, staff would like to have an initial discussion with the applicant in order to provide ample time and opportunity for the applicant to explore housing if necessary. RESPONSE: The Commission believed that City projects should not be exempt from employee mitigation unlike other development. 4. A conditional use review is required for a park maintenance facility in the Park zone district. The conditional use review will occur at step 3. Is there a conceptual problem with the continued and expanded use at this location? RESPONSE: The Commission explored with the Parks Department alternative sites for their facility. In conclusion the Commission voted to approved the continued use of this site for a Parks and Golf office and maintenance facility. 8 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to Council conceptual PUD approval for the Parks Department maintenance and office expansion with the following conditions as approved and amended: 1. A final architectural plan with elevations of all proposed buildings including identification of building materials shall be included in the submitted final PUD application. 2. A detailed lighting plan and landscape plan shall be included in the final PUD application. A housing mitigation plan shall be provided to mitigate 1.8 employees in the submitted final PUD application. 4. A storm drainage plan shall be included in the submitted final PUD application. 5. A conceptual sidewalk/curb/gutter and paving plan shall be developed with the Engineering Department and submitted for review during final PUD review. 6. A revised site plan shall be included in the final PUD application and shall include: a. trash/recycle area and bike storage/racks; b. on-site parking spaces; and c. relocated 15th Tee and berm near the Tee. 7. Oil and sand separators shall be installed where vehicles are serviced and stored. All chemical/fertilizer storage must be designed to prevent leakage into the public sewer system. 8. The four inch sewer service line shall be replaced. 9. The project shall install an approved automatic sprinkler system. 10. The application for final PUD review shall include the following items: a. detail description of building material b. detailed landscape plan c. a percentage break-out of golf use and parks use of the facility d. analysis of equipment and depreciation costs e. elevations of the proposed building including heights f. employee mitigation plan 11. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning 9 Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: " I move to approval conceptual PUD review of the Parks and Golf maintenance and office expansion with the conditions outlined Resolution #34,- Series of 1995. " CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Resolution # 31- EXHIBITS A. Application B. Referral Comments C. Department Recreational Responsibilities D. Expansion Alternatives 10 ..4 3 ( RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 Chairman Bruce Kerr called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Answering roll call were Roger Hunt, Sara Garton, Tim Mooney, Marta Chaikovska, Steve Buettow and Bruce Kerr. Excused were Jasmine Tygre and Robert Blaich. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS There were no comments. STAFF COMMENTS Leslie Lamont asked if the commission understood the upcoming agendas; on May 16th at 4:00 p.m., there will be a joint P&Z Growth Management Commission Review of the Waterplace Affordable Housing Project. She stated that was set up in the GMQS amendments that affordable housing projects in the metro area are reviewed by the joint P&Zs. Basically, the review criteria is the same used for scoring, although you do not score, you pass on recommendations to Council for the GMQS Exemption. Garton asked, is affordable 4 housing never scored? Lamont answered, it is never scored. Buettow asked to be excused from the Joint P&Z Growth Management Commission Review as he said he would have to step down anyway, due to conflict of interest. Chairman Kerr stated it was fine with him. Buettow would be at the regular meeting which starts following at 5:00 p.m. Hunt requested the Buckhorn and Independence Place applicants to be put earlier on the agenda as he was leaving the following morning early and if he had to leave early he did not want to miss those particular proposals. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none. MINUTES Hunt moved to adopt the minutes of 18 and 25 April, 1995. Kerr moved for amended minutes of April 25, 1995 regarding the Farish Hallam Lake Memorandum. He requested to include comments by Gideon Kaufman. Garton seconded, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. IC . PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 MOORE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing. Leslie Lamont presented for staff and asked applicant Moore to submit to the clerk the Affidavit of Public Notice (attached in record). She introduced applicants Gary and Debra Moore and architect, Stuart Lousk. She stated the Moore's were proposing to build a single-family home with an above grade accessory dwelling unit on the bend on the river at Oklahoma Flats. She stated they are proposing to build an approximate 4,150 sq. ft. home, with a 500 sq. ft. garage and utilize a 250 sq. ft. bonus that they gain by proposing an accessory dwelling above grade. She gave a little history of the project; it went through a Design Review by the Overlay Review Committee. The review was mandatory. After submitting the application for Stream Margin Review Conditional Use, the applicants went to the Board of Adjustment requesting a 7-1/2 ft. front-yard setback variance so they could pull the house closer to their front yard and away from a grove of cottonwood trees which is on the site plan. The Overlay Committee recommended, based on guidelines, that the application was inconsistent and should adhere more to staff's recommendations. The Board of Adjustment tabled making a decision on the variance request. One reason was the Board wanted the project to come before Planning and Zoning Commission for Stream Margin Review. She gave a correction to her memorandum. Her real emphasis in the conditions of approval on the Stream Margin Review are the bands of cottonwoods. The Moore's are working with a parcel which received stream margin approval several years ago, however, since the code has been changed and three years have passed, staff has determined that they do not have vested rights and had to come back through the stream margin review process. She stated one important thing is the way that staff has significantly changed the stream margin review criteria; they now require a 15 ft. setback from the top of the bank. This project is minimum 28 ft. setback from the top of the bank, because of the shaping of the home. She stated they have a site plan showing where there are different lines at the top of the bank. She stated on page 8 of her memorandum , her biggest concern and the reason the Moore's went to the Board of Adjustment, is the attempt to try and save, as much as possible, the band of cottonwood trees. In Condition #3: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan for review by the Planning, Engineering and Parks staff. The revised site plan shall include: a) a new building envelope that reduces the envelope on the river's side by another PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 5 ft. She said she, the applicants, and George Robinson of the Parks Department met on the site and talked about revision to their building envelope that attempts to save more trees. She said the revision is on the site plan to be shown. It did not make sense to require a total 5 ft. setback, and the difficulty is in the center of the home and a cluster of cottonwoods there. Lamont stated she really had no issues with the accessory dwelling unit; the plans that were submitted show that the accessory dwelling unit may have exceeded the 700 sq. ft. limit, which is 700 FAR. The applicants have told Lamont that they have revised the accessory dwelling unit and now it is a net liveable size of 650. She said they needed to work with Bill Drueding to make sure they are calculating the area correctly and the accessory dwelling unit does not exceed 700 sq. ft. Even though the accessory dwelling unit is 700 sq. ft., the maximum of the bonus they will receive is 250. Buettow asked with the tabling of the variance at the Board of Adjustment, will it be carried on or is it a proper procedure to look at the final site plan when there are changes to come? Lamont answered that with the original proposal that went before the Board of Adjustment, it did not change the footprint of the layout of the home, it just took the whole home and pulled it 7-1/2 ft. closer. f But, after today, and the site visit, they have changed the back side of the building envelope to protect more of the trees in the back and middle, without moving the building forward. She stated she had a letter which she felt should be read for the record, since the Moore's had not seen it. Chairman Kerr read the letter from Denise Reich, property owner directly across the street from the site, opposing building of the home and its impact on the entire area of Oklahoma Flats (attached in record). Applicant, Gary Moore, answered to the letter from Denise Reich stating that Reich's house encroaches approximately 7 to 7-1/2 ft. towards Spring Street. He said, concerning the 700 sq. ft., he said his plan does not add 700 sq. ft. total to the whole package. The area of the accessory dwelling unit is within the total square footage of the home, and it is down to 650 sq. ft. He stated he is trying to work as closely with everyone as he can. Another reason for asking for the 250 sq. ft. bonus, is that they do not have the luxury of having any low-grade space on the property. They are taking that additional square footage and putting it into a third bay in the garage. It is causing Moore to spread out the footprint because they are not allowed sub-grade space for storage, etc. Moore stated he has tried to follow all rules, regulapions, and guidelines for each committee they have gone to and tried to make changes requested by the Design Overlay Review Committee and Stream Margin Review, but he said he felt pushed from both L. 3 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 ( directions. He said they have redesigned corners and fit things in to try and make everyone happy. Since going in for a variance, which was to move the house away from the grouping of trees along the river, and that variance being denied, they decided to follow the request of the Planning Department to stay away from that area. He showed the site plan to the Commission with the assistance of outlines on the property. He showed where the impact on the trees has been reduced. Prior to this meeting, he said he submitted two packages for tree mitigation on the property. One was denied, the second one was approved based upon pulling the house back for the variance. He stated he understood that he could not build without removing any trees, but he said they were trying the -best they could not to touch a lot of them. He explained the variance request with use of the site plan, the location of Denise Reich's house, and said the variance was no longer an issue. Kerr asked if Moore could live without the variance at this point, based on the present plan and Moore stated, he could. Hunt asked about the access to the property across Spring Street, and Moore stated his neighbor parked on Spring Street and showed it on the map. Another issue required in Moore's package by the Engineering Department, is that since the right-of-ways in the area are so small, parking is required for the ADU unit. That is the reason for a third bay in Chaikovska asked if the site plan reduced the envelope on the river the garage; to have more cars off the street. side by 5 ft. or was it an additional 5 ft. Moore answered, no, it was not adding and showed on the map. She asked if that impacted the building, and Moore stated, no, it did not, in certain areas. She stated, would you have to redesign it, and Moore answered, yes, again. Chaikovska asked what was the purpose of the 5 ft. that he wanted. Lamont answered that her recommendation for the 5 ft. was to take it out of line of the building envelope, and pull it in 5 ft. to give greater protection to the band of trees, and she and Moore showed the gray area on the map where the building envelope used to be. Moore stated that since he was only digging to frost line, and the ground was fairly easy to dig, he could cut pretty clean banks; digging 3-4 ft. depending on the soil. In some areas he might have to dig 5 ft., but since he will be digging a pretty small bank he can keep the cut pretty close to the foundation line. Normally one does an overdig of 2-3 feet, and in some of these cases, he said he could stay closer, perhaps a foot and a half away from the foundation line. j Hunt asked if setting the house back 5 more feet accomplish anything, except the possibility of the survivability of two trees , (in one particular area of map). George Robinson of the Parks 4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 Department stated that moving the house out an extra 5 ft. out gives trees a much higher success. He stated he had worked for 6- 7 years with the city and he has never seen anyone such as Moore who has tried to redesign their house around trees so many times to save them. Hunt asked if Robinson saw a great end accomplished by another 5 ft. over what has been done already. Robinson stated that looking at the plan, and knowing no matter where one excavates around trees, they will be impacted somewhat; looking at the healthy trees they could save possibly one hundred caliber inches in trees by Moore setting the house back 5 ft. If any trees do die, he stated Moore would still be responsible for them. He stated it is still a chance to save 100 inches of trees by doing what Moore has done - that is approximately 10 trees. Buettow asked how many of the 5-6 trees between the green line (on map) and building envelope would survive. Moore said it would be close depending on how the dig goes, where the roots are, and what type of crowns the trees have. Buettow stated that perhaps two of the trees would be impacted. Chairman Kerr asked for public comment; there was none. He closed the public hearing. Moore said in regard to the ADU, he was not at the maximum FAR. We are at 4,242 sq. ft. FAR. Kerr asked what the proposed usage / of the ADU was. Moore said it was for interim housing for his wife's parents when visiting, and later on, will be a nice rental unit. Kerr asked if Moore had any problems with any of the conditions in staff's memorandum. Moore stated he had none, whatsoever. Kerr asked Lamont in Condition #3-a, was she referring to an additional 5 ft? She stated she would change the language to say, "the revised building envelope as presented at the Planning & Zoning Commission that reduces the envelope on the river side". Garton stated not to mention the footage because it is not 5 ft. in some areas. MOTION Hunt moved to approve the conditional use and stream margin review for Lot 1&2 South 1/2 of Lot 3, Block 1, Oklahoma Flats with conditions 1-5 on Planning Office memorandum dated May 2, 1995, pertaining to the ADU; with conditions 1-11 on Planning Office memorandum dated May 2, 1995 pertaining to the stream margin review, with the modification of 3-a to read: " the revised new building envelope as presented at Planning & Zoning that reduces the envelope on the river sidel . Garton seconded, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. 5 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 Kerr asked if it was still necessary to go before the Board of Adjustment. Debra Moore answered it was not necessary, but an adjustment of even 2-1/2 to 3 ft. would help. She stated she would like to go the the Board of Adjustment and reduce footage they were requesting. It would take care of any of the trees that are in question. Chairman Kerr asked if there were any members of the commission that would be opposed to an incringement of 2-1/2 to 3 ft. There were no objections and Kerr asked staff to relay that there were no objections from P&Z to the Board of Adjustment. ASPEN THEATRE IN THE PARK FINAL SPA Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing. Kim Johnson represented on behalf of staff, and asked Carol Lowenstern, representing applicant, to submit for the record the Affidavit of Public Notice (attached in record). Johnson stated this was a final SPA Plan and Special Review for Parking for the Aspen Theatre in the Park. Johnson said she had been processing their yearly approvals through staff's temporary use permit process, because the applicant was unable to come in for full SPA. Given the amount of time it takes, it always seemed their season caught up with them, and they needed some immediate solution to their tent correction every year. The theatre tent is erected in May and removed in September of each year. This year, Johnson said, they wanted to get a headstart, and she stated staff does support this final SPA Plan with its accessory reviews. There are a couple of issues that are presented in the memorandum, both from Planning and Parks' perspective; they are, parking of non-central service vehicles in the parking and service area, and a year-round storage situation, including everything from legitimate prop materials to construction debris. Johnson stated staff has conditioned the approval with specific conditions regarding continued diligence of the parking situation, requiring them to promptly clean up the site after each summer season, and prohibition against storage and materials on site. Johnson stated she and Carol Lowenstern spoke previously and there are some options the applicant can pursue later as an amendment to approval. She said the proposal is consistent with the 1993 Rio Grande Masterplan which Johnson reviewed in processing this plan. Kerr asked if Johnson was placing the burden of parking enforcement on applicant. Johnson Feplied that she was putting the applicant on notice that it is an issue, and if felt by staff, City Parks, and Planning and Zoning that it is a continued on-going thing, that Theatre in Parks will have to be called back for discussion. Kerr 6 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 asked if the applicant will call police department if someone is parking illegally, or notify their suppliers. Johnson stated that perhaps Lowenstern had more insight, but employees, instead of parking in the Rio Grande Parking Garage or along Rio Grande Place, park next to the tent area. Johnson said, according to the language in the Rio Grande Masterplan, the area is for central delivery-type service and handicapped parking to be used during performances, and only when necessary for delivery. Kerr stated that what he was getting at was; staff is not requiring applicant to provide some kind of parking mitigation plan that must be reviewed periodically, but instead, is saying, don't do this kind of thing, don't let it happen, and if.it does, you are subject to us looking at it again if someone complains. Otherwise, there really is no enforcement mechanism. Johnson agreed, stating, I guess SO, unless the commission could offer some more internal suggestions. Lowensterri stated that if one person is ticketed once, no one would park there. She said Aspen Theatre in the Park really tries to keep people from parking illegally, but occasionally someone will go into the tent thinking they will be there for a few minutes and stays there an hour and their car sits there. She felt ticketing would be appropriate. Kerr stated he was not suggesting more, he said he was trying to make sure of the understanding. ~~~ : Hunt said he wondered if the accessway to that area should be posted "no parking", except for handicapped and active delivery. Garton stated that if posted, then it could be ticketed, and she felt that was important. George Robinson of Parks stated he felt signings would help a lot, and Lowenstern agreed. Kerr asked if the applicant had a presentation to make and Lowenstern stated she did not. Kerr asked if she had read the conditions of approval and she stated she had, and had no problems with them. Chuck Roth of Engineering asked regarding wiring and it not being underground. Garton asked if the lights were from a generator or off the power pole. It was stated there were some wires in the air and the electric source was a transformer in a shed, from the power pole, to the wooden shed, and then into the tent. Lowenstern stated there were some wires in tubing that go into the back of the tent. Kerr asked Roth if that was the only place around the Rio Grande that has overhead, and was everything else underground. Roth stated, yes, it was the only place that had overhead. Hunt stated that he thought it was most likely telephone wiring as opposed to an electical drop. There were nq public comments and Chairman Kerr closed the public hearing. 7 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 MOTION Hunt moved to recommend approval of the SPA Amendment and Special Review for Parking, GMQS Exemption for an Essential Public Facility for the Theatre in the Park with Conditions 1-5 on Planning Office memorandum dated 2 May 1995 and an additional Condition #6; if there are overhead utilities, they should be underground. Garton seconded, vote was unanimous with all in favor with 6 conditions; motion carried. Discussion of Motion Clarification was asked of Condition #1 regarding signage of the road. Johnson stated she had written some language and could read it; Kerr asked her to do so. "The parking area and roadway shall be signed for handicap access and service delivery only, and shall not be used for access drive" . Hunt stated he would so accept that in the motion. Kerr asked if Aspen Theatre in the Park would put up the signs and pay for the signs? Johnson asked Robinson of the Parks Department if Parks had signs to put up, or do they buy them. Robinson stated they could work with the applicant regarding the signs and usually the applicant pays for the signs. As far as placement and installation, Parks would confer with the applicant. Chaikovska asked regarding the wiring and questioned the expense. She stated the commission was putting in the condition without even knowing where it is, and said, perhaps it should be modified to see what the applicant is up against. Garton addressed Robinson's memorandum, Exhibit A, to the applicant. The memorandum asked if there were any proposals to improve any of the facilities, such as the portable housing toilet, the electrical panel housing and storage area. Lowenstern stated there hasn't been. Garton asked if staff thought that portable toilets and all are fine? It was stated that it was a temporary thing and Garton asked, how do we know that? Johnson stated, temporary meaning, not used all year round, and probably would not make financial sense to install plumbing. Robinson added that there have been a few improvements but not represented on the map. Garton asked if the Parks Department was responsible for the maintenance of the Snowmelt area by a trail. Robinson stated it had been turfed and rocks put in front of the tent area. j 'Garton asked regarding no maintenance issues, such as irrigation and turf, being addressed. Robinson stated he was basically asking in his memorandum if applicant planned any more improvements in irrigation, and if applicant still planned on mowing as they have 8 4 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 historically, and if they wanted that donated to the city. If so, the Parks Department needed to know that, and it was there for coordination. Lowenstern stated she would relay the this to the the Theatre and its committee. Mooney asked staff if there was any way, under the guidelines of the SPA, that the Theatre in the Park could be used for anything else; for any other event, meeting, or sub-lease or any other activity that could happen. He was concerned about any change in philosophy or change in process. Johnson said she would say, no. Representations have been made in their letters that it is for some performances, for so many weeks of the year, even times of the day, that they are presented. In the off hours, there are sets up and Johnson said it is not like a vacant stage that could be rented out. Lowenstern stated that perhaps there were some days in August where it could happen. Chairman Kerr closed the public hearing. CITY OF ASPEN/GOLF MAINTENANCE FACILITY CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT GMOS EXEMPTION & CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW Leslie Lamont presented on behalf of staff and stated that the Parks Department is requesting an expansion of their office and maintenance facility. The zone district is Park with a PUD overlay, therefore, it requires either insubstantial or substantial review. Staff has determined, and the Parks Department has requested, this be considered a substantial review; typically, substantial reviews are a two-step process, but Parks has requested a full four-step review process - doing conceptual P&Z City Council and then final P&Z and City Council. Lamont stated that is why this meeting is technically not a public hearing. Lamont stated that the meeting would be just a conceptual review of the proposal and she said that at the end of her memorandum she outlined several threshold issues she felt the commission could give guidance to the Parks Department on. Basically, she said the applicants are proposing to expand their existing office space by an additional 1,000 sq. ft. and they are proposing to construct a maintenance storage facility of about 9,000 sq. ft. The proposal in the application is one that has been worked through with their architect, neighborhood meetings, and one that they believe is the best solution for them. However, they did start out with several different ideas and several different designs. In addition, Lamont attached to the memorandum, a letter from Bill Sharp with his suggestion for a design for the maintenance building. 9 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 Lamont said the process is Conceptual PUD Review, which, as she stated, is P&Z and City Council. When the application comes back for final review, then the issue of Conditional Use Review will be addressed. A Parks maintenance facility is a conditional use in the Park zone district, and also the issue of GMQS Exemption will be addressed. Staff is requesting GMQS exemption for the expansion of an essential public facility. She stated the other item, as far as GMQS exemption goes; essential public facilities are exempted from the growth management competition process, but that does not allow them eliminate any mitigation requirements - primarily, housing. Often people request to have their housing mitigated, and at that time it will be the recommendation from P&Z to City Council how housing should be done. She said she would identify that as a kind of threshold issue to just get a sense of where the commission wants to go with the application so the Parks Department knows if they need to be thinking of housing or doing a little bit more detailed analysis and survey for the commission. The application states Parks is not hiring the employees, it is basically just an area to store existing equipment, and to expand the cramped office facilities that they do have. The other threshold issues identified were: Originally Parks was talking about moving the entrance to the yard and the offices further down Cemetery Lane. There is a real problem at the F Cemetery Lane intersection, and she stated that during the site visit it was noticed that cars were backed up. She said there is also a pedestrian bike path there which causes a dangerous situation. Parks has withdrawn moving the entrance from the application at this time, but if the commission is so inclined, there may be some presentation on that issue. The Engineering Department has also recommended moving, where the Parks Department originally proposed to move the entrancef even further down. She stated that Bill Sharp could not be at the meeting, so Bob Sharp was in attendance representing him. Lamont stated the Parks Department would present some of their different alternatives and she turned the presentation over to George Robinson and Rebecca Baker of the Parks Department. Robinson stated the first design was to try to design a building that was minimum impact on the area and also meet the needs. It was a two-story building and once the design was done Parks went to the neighbors, put up poles with flags to represent the heighth of it; taking into consideration the neighbors' views. One of the big concerns was how it would impact the next door neighbor, Bill Sharp. In looking at the design, the number one complaint was the height of approximately 24 ft. 10 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 Robinson passed drawings of 5 alternative designs to the commission. Mooney asked if perhaps the applicant should inquire if the commission had any objections to the existing proposal because Mooney did not know if the commission should go back and study the things that have been eliminated. He asked if it was a necessary part of the process. Kerr stated he, personally, would like to look at all the options, including Mr. Sharp's option, especially since it was just a conceptual review. Mooney stated that was fine, he was ready. In the second design, Robinson said the building was basically 24 ft., so they looked at taking and rounding off the building, bringing it down to 21 ft. It was better, but still of concern to the neighbors. They told the neighbors they would like to have their input and ideas and they came up with a few. Basically, they came up with eliminating the two-story building. They came up with two buildings facing each other, which did not work with the traffic or the flow of the machines, and did not hide the mass on the maintenance facility from the golfers or the houses. They looked at another design, an L-shape, which seemed to work out real well. They also had designs where there was a real long building configuration, but it still did not work. With the Golf Department and the Parks Department on the site, there are approximately 40-45 people hired. Also, those people are on some type of a machine and when you get everyone there in the morning going in different ways, you have to have some type of flow. On the L-shaped design from Bill Sharp, Robinson said they took that and improved on it. He said they went to the PPRG meeting, and there was not as many people there as they would have liked, in so far as design consultants. As a result of that meeting, Bill Sharp came back with another idea; pull up a little closer to the building, keeping it two-story because it would keep the noise away. After looking at it, they were still in the two- story stage and would have to dig down, and did not leave a lot of room where the office was. Where the building was situated, they only had approximately 21 ft. to take a truck or piece of equipment and make a radius, and it did not work with the flow of traffic. Where he did agree with Sharp was that it would lesson the noise down from his area. He showed that on the exterior of the building, facing the golf course, and Mr. Sharp's property, where they planned on putting most of it to hide the building and add vegetation. He said the office space is very crowded. Garton asked if these were elevations or birds-eye-view of the building (referring.to drawing). Baker answered birds-eye-view. Baker stated they hoped to come away from this meeting with the building envelope and then show elevations later and more specific L - 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 designs. She said they were hesitant to come to the commission with architectural renditions, and then realize that was not what was wanted. They did not feel it was prudent to spend money on architectural services and then redesign or relocate. Garton asked regarding the shed that is next to the Pro Shop; was any equipment kept there. Steve Aitken, Director of the Golf Course, answered it is utilized in the summer to store golf carts, and because of the lack of storage space, in the winter they have to move the golf carts down valley and store other golf equipment into the compound. Robinson said it stores some of the equipment, but not all. Hunt asked on the drawing that lines showing Hwy. 82, should they not be Cemetery Lane. Baker stated yes, that there was a mistake. Mooney asked if the end of the page was the property line. Baker stated, yes, the south side of it. Garton asked about the north side. Baker stated, the north side, to about where the pond is, is where it meets up with the Sharp property. He said Bill Sharp was a wonderful volunteer and that Sharp's yard was gorgeous and Parks tried to work with him in creating barriers. He stated he did not have with him the exact boundary lines between Sharp's property and the golf course. Chaikovska asked if Parks was proposing to house the electric golf carts in the new facilities. Robinson stated, no. Chaikovska asked if they needed the barn by where the cart barn is now. Aitken stated, they would still need it. Robinson added that there are still many things that they do not include as equipment, such as, picnic tables, barrels, flower fences, that is not pleasant to look at and needs storage. Chaikovska asked regarding two-story. Robinson said the building they are proposing is one-story, but they started out with two-stories. Chaikovska asked why they needed two stories, was it a height requirement for storing equipment or something on the second floor. Robinson said storage space, and then try to condense the building itself. In talking with the neighbors, they did not care for the heighth. Lamont suggested Robinson go through each of the designs with the commission and explain why it was decided not to use each plan in order of the process. The first alternative was a two-story building and they had problems, not only with the height, but how to fit it in and make it work without using some type of ramp to get to the second floor or elevators. Garton asked if they were all new structures, were they going to keep any of the existing structures. Robinson said said the existing structure they would keep was the office, and he showed the location on the design. He said they will add onto the office. Chaikovska asked what the material would be of the building. Baker stated the structure would look somewhat like a covered bridge on the entrance to the facility, and Robinson said 12 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 the material would be a foam, with wire mesh on both sides and concrete is blown on it. He said it was a stucco-looking type of building; low maintenance. He stated Carbondale had a firehouse that was recently just completed and it was constructed with this type of material and he would get pictures. Kerr said that on the entrance, all designs basically showed the entrance moved, coming in and crossing the pond. Robinson addressed that, stating the the main thought was to get away from the center sections as there have been some close calls. Efficiency in getting in and out appeared to be more of an issue with the neighbors than the design of the building. Robinson asked at this time that they use what they have, unless someone has a better idea. There was a proposal to bring the entrance down a little further, but they are not asking for this now. Hunt asked what affect would going back to the former Cemetery Lane alignment have, if the entry into town changes that alignment. Robinson said one would be to keep the open space and go to the original. If that is the case, then they would have to line up their access road somewhere close to where it is now. How they would do that, he was not sure. Hunt said if something does happen with the entry to town; if it is one of the main street alignments that end up flushing through....whatever you want to call it....he was wondering because the existing road is right now so close to Hwy. 82, that if Cemetery Lane got shifted to the east, you would be looking at a fairly long parallel road along Hwy. 82 to get to the same, more or less, bad spot on Cemetery Lane in respect to the intersection. He thought maybe they should wait until the alignment issue flushes out before looking at the proposed access. He felt it would have some benefits to wait until they know what is going on. Garton stated the existing does cross the path. Hunt stated the proposed does not. Robinson stated they had yield signs on both sides of the path in the entryway, but not everyone yielded, so the Park Department has actually put up stop signs on both sides. Kerr asked if they were planning on eliminating the existing day- care pick-up area. Robinson said the parking would stay the same as it is; as far as the baby-sitting drop-off area, they were trying to work with that and it would probably stay the same. Kerr stated some of the existing traffic problem would remain; it would be Parks' actual service vehicles that would have an improved situation. j Chaikovska asked which was the ultimate design. She said it still had a bridge and asked if it could go around the pond. She inquired if there were geese at the pond. Robinson said they used to keep 13 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 geese there, and there has been a lot of vegetation that has grown there now. Garton asked if the L-shaped worked best for Parks and the Sharp's? Robinson stated, it really does. Alternative Designs 2 and 3 were explained by Robinson. Number 3 was a design by one of the neighbors, both were two-story. He said they looked at both but there was still traffic conjestion and did not utilize what they had. Design 4 had major traffic problems and you could see it from the highway. Design 5, still two-stories, they were still trying to get away from the height. Chaikovska stated that Exhibit 6 looked like a huge wall from the golf course and asked if partial sub-grade was out of the question. Robinson answered Exhibit 6 was still more down in the ground, approximately 3-4 feet, and they wanted to keep the height of the building down as low as they could, so visually you don't see anything but scrubs and trees. Kerr stated we now have the Design Review Overlay Committee that reviews monster homes and their impact, and how it affects the neighbors - so, is this the right thing to do? He didn't have any problems with necessarily the 9,000 sq. ft., but was troubled by the long expanse of the wall. If that is the only way it can be done he was for it, but with the impact of the long wall on the golfers and the neighbors, he felt troubled. As it relates to the employee housing, he felt it was a bad precedent for the City to say to everyone else if you are going to build a project you must mitigate your housing for us to waive it. Robinson stated, once again, if someone would come by and come up with some other ideas, they were welcome. Bob Sharp spoke and stated it was appreciated that Robinson has worked with the neighbors and gone through so many steps with six designs. One of his biggest concerns was to have 9,000 sq. ft. of covered area to store many things that could actually be sold, things that sit out year after year. He asked if the 9,000 sq. ft. was actually necessary. He presented Bill Sharp's plan, and said the storage shed would be closer to Hwy. 82 because of the noise and be hidden from the golfers by the existing and proposed office. He said the bridge was not necessary, and to keep the entrance the same, and not have it stretched out in a big "L" . He felt by having it more condensed and all closer together, it would be more efficient, much easier to supervise what is happening. Robinson answered, the reason they came up with the 9,000 sq.' ft. When the City was doing their proposal with the Masterplan, they took and measured every piece of equipment to see if they could house it elsewhere. They came up with 7,000 sq. ft. of heated area 11 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 and 2,000 sq. ft. cold storage was necessary. As for the items suggested to be sold, they will not be housed in the new facility; it will store just all equipment, not picnic tables, etc. Doug Roball, with Aspen Junior Golf Foundation, spoke and said that in his experience in working with golf courses and golf equipment, he said we are talking about several hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment that needs to be covered. He felt the facility was needed. As far as golfers seeing the facility, every golf course has a storage and maintenance facility and part of a golf course and needed. Chaikovska asked Robinson if the plan that Bill Sharp came up with worked for him traffic-wise, and what his thoughts were. Robinson answered that one of the problems they had with Sharp's plan, was getting in and out all the time and working with the traffic that are visitors. He said, when you have 45 employees or more you have a lot of parking, and one of the main problems they had with Sharp's plan was the conjestion, and the flow of traffic just didn't seem to work well. Lamont presented a letter for the record from Aspen Snowmass Nordic Council President, Craig C. Ward in support of the application. (Attached in record.) Kerr said he felt Robinson had looked at most options, but how much did they look at the east end, between Truscott Place, the seventh green and tenth green. He did not know how wide that area was. Robinson stated, yes, they had looked at that a lot, where all the dirt piles are. He said that with all that they do, they still have to have some place to house different types of sands, soils, and rocks. Kerr stated he was thinking long-term and that there may come a time when Parks may be separated from golf. He said he had looked at a Masterplan relating to Parks, and one of the things talked about was a multi-purpose facility for ice, and swimming. Kerr stated, what if the current ice garden became the Parks maintenance storage place and we have already gone ahead and built a 9,000 sq. ft. facility. Is that too much for just golf maintenance, at that point? He said he was just trying to think ahead. Robinson said they have talked about the application since 1986 with those options, and they are still looking for options. He stated the options are not there. They considered, with Bill Sharp, putting little buildings in each little park. It is an idea, but it is not efficient, because you have to have water and maybe gas in each one. j Chaikovska asked how much of the facility will Parks be utilizing and how much will the golf course be utilizing? Robinson said an 15 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 approximate 40/60% ratio, 60% being in the Parks Department favor. Chaikovska asked if that was enough for the golf course? Robinson said, it was enough for now, with a little extra room to grow. Kerr asked how big was the budget? Robinson said, $ 450,000 from the Parks side; golf has put in some money. Chaikovska asked how much he was looking for as a contribution? Robinson answered, $30,000. He said it was a good start, the best start in ten years. He stated they had a $50,000 mower, and two pieces of snowcats that are $100,000-$115,000 apiece that are not adequately covered from the sun. These are just a few pieces, he said they have probably 115 pieces of expensive equipment and without a new facility they have to ask for more equipment. Baker stated it was important to realize that the type of equipment that they have is not meant to be stored outside. Buettow stated he had gone to the site and checked it over and he thought the driveway worked nice, the central area where they could move their equipment around and parking seemed to work toward their advantage. The existing entryway concerned him a lot and seemed to need some more study; other than that, it seemed to work pretty well. Chaikovska said she appreciated all the effort into doing all the alternative designs and liked the fact that they were going to maintain a lower height, and she said landscaping would be important. The road concerned her, and it would be interesting to see the alternatives there, but otherwise, she agreed they critically need a facility and are spending a lot of money maintaining the equipment. Hunt said that if the equipment layout is an example of 9,000 sq. ft., it looked to him that they needed 9,000 sq. ft. He had no quarrel with that at all, he just questioned how they wanted to configure it, and if the neighbors prefer the more shallow buildings then that was perfectly appropriate. He felt they had done a good job in designing it and it concerned him that they had approximatelly 10-15 vehicles that still are not undercover with ~ the proposal. In mitigating employee housing, he said he would assume that they would just look at the increase of the office space, as opposed to a 9,000 feet of storage. As far as the access road, he felt it appropriate to use the existing access road now. In the future, we may have to do something, if Ceme tery Lane shifts and we shall deal with that in the future. Mooney stated he visited the site, and 'it doesn't take long to realize that the complexity of what is going on out there demands this kind of space. He felt it was the most practical, straight- forward, and easy application of the bare necessities. He said it 16 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 was hard to imagine that they were dealing with 24 ft. trucks, and Catepillar loaders, and articulated little tractors, and that type of equipment should not be compromised. He felt they should have all the room they need, and parking was critical. He did not feel they could eliminate any of that, looking at the site and the safety of the people - 45 people going in and out, he said the other plans were not even close to the efficiency of this existing plan. He felt Robinson should "stick to his guns" on this and get exactly what he wants. As far as the mitigation, he did not feel the City deserved to have any privilege in mitigating. If the growth is there, the mitigation should be exacted. Robinson asked if they were not going to include any more employees, but are just making more room, do we still have to do the mitigation for housing. Lamont answered, typically, yes. Garton said she supported the plan, too. She liked the long shed, she felt it was very appropriate. Like Buettow, she was concerned about the access, but like Hunt, she felt it was probably premature to change that access until it is seen what goes on with the "famous entrance to Aspen" . She supported mitigating the housing. Kerr said this was one that really troubles me, because as several people in the room know, I play a lot of golf; an excess of - probably a hundred rounds last year, and therefore, I'm all in favor of everything we can do to make it better. There is no question of support of the golfing parts. He said he was troubled by the long expanse of the wall, but if that is the only way we can do it, he said he would go for it. The impact of the wall upon the golfers, especially the slicers, and upon the neighbors; he said that was his concern. As it relates to the employee housing, he felt it was a bad precedent for the City to say to everybody else, you are going to build a project, you must mitigate your housing for us to waiver, it sets a bad example. Kerr asked Lamont, as it relates to conceptual, do we have to give you more than feedback; do we actually have to give you a plan. Lamont answered, you make a recommendation to Council approving with conditions, or denying conceptual review. MOTION Hunt moved to recommend conceptual PUD approval of the Parks and Golf maintenance and office expansion with conditions 1-10, outlined in Planning Office memorandum dated 2 May, 1995. I will so include that included with conditions shall be: 1. Detail of building material, 2. Landscape plan, 3. a breakout of percentage j of Golf Use and Parks Use, 4. Analysis of equipment and depreciation cost, 5. Better elevations, 6. Employees Mitigation Plan. Mooney seconded, voting commenced, unanimous in favor, 17 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 motion carried. WATER PLACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUBDIVISION SPA AMENDMENT, GMQS EXEMPTION, CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW Chairman Kerr opened the public hearing. Kim Johnson, Planning Department presented for staff and introduced the City of Aspen's representatives, Cris Caruso of City Engineering Department, Tom Stevens of the Stevens Group, and Gibson and Reno representing architecture. She said it was a 16 unit complex at the City Water Plant, which is known as Lot 4, City of Aspen Thomas Property. It does have an SPA overlay on it, so that is a blanket review on this project. It is being processed as a Consolidated Review, which means that the commission only sees it one time, and it goes forward to Council for their final consideration. If either review body, commission or Council, deems that it should be a four-step review process, at any point during the review, they can make that determination. Included with the Housing Project is two storage buildings on the south side of the water plant, which is several hundred feet to the south of the housing units. These storage buildings will be used by the water and electrical departments for their heavy maintenance equipment and truck storage. The background of this project, aside from the storage issue, which she felt did not probably need to be discussed in too much detail, is that the City is finding it increasingly difficult to find qualified personnel for their staffing needs and/or personnel for emergency response or maintenance response, such as snow removel and water leaks. Employees now are forced to commute from Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, Rifle, etc. The response time is pretty unresponsive. She stated they had gotten several referral comments and the County will also be submitting additional referral comments in a more formal capacity, but at this point she said she did not have anything from them. This project is being reviewed by the Joint City and County Growth Management Commission, not from a scoring perspective, but just from a review perspective to see how the project qualifies under the Affordable Housing and residential review guidelines. That will occur on May 16th, so it will be .in between P&Z review and Council review. J She introduced the information she handed to the commission, which was a formal response from the Environmental Health Department to 18 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 the information on SIP Compliance from Tom Stevens. Environmental Health stated that Stevens' letter was acceptable to them as far as reduction of PM-10 miles traveled and the impact to PM-10. Also, she said she had just received an hour prior to the meeting by fax, a letter from Mr. Craig Angus, Ph. D., a Twin Ridge resident. He spoke about his objections to the project. He was concerned about the lower units, mixed traffic at the junction of Twin Ridge Drive, Doolittle Circle and Water Plant Road; he felt there was a safety hazard for children, pedestrians and bicyclists. He requested considering moving the units to the top of the ridge, improving the roads, and helping make the corner safer and more enjoyable for all. She also stated thateris Caruso had a draft form of the response of Phase II Site Assessment. (All three documents are attached in record.) Johnson stated she had one more clarification on Page 6 of her memorandum. She stated the consulting engineer referenced a pro- rated cost for Castle Creek Road and it is $3,891.00 for the entire subdivision, not per unit cost sharing amount. Under the SPA, which is a consolidated review, she said they are also considering subdivision; Growth Management Exemption for central public facilities and for the housing units, 8040 Greenline Review, Conditional Use for Housing in the Public Zone, and also in the Public Zone we have to accommodate special reviews for parking, open space, and the dimentional requirements. Johnson stated that on page 16 of her memorandum it sets forth highlights of the major issues that staff is dealing with in putting together the memorandum. Doolittle Drive has a difficult curve and they are making improvement to that road, but it is a steep road, at 10% she believed, or just under 10%. She is hoping to have a very complete chlorine hazard mitigation plan, reducing the smaller amounts of chlorine on site as needed, and/or excavation needs for the neighborhood. Information #3, regarding toxic substances, seemed to be somewhat abated as Caruso's Phase II Environmental Assessment seemed to indicate that PCBs have not been reviewed on the site. Number 4, visual impacts along the top of the hillside; specifically, heights of buildings, proximity of buildings to the top of the slope, and the need for additional evergreen screening along the top of the slope. She said they want to have more detailed thought about the Park development; there is an open space that is being proposed for the lower end of the site and she felt it would be nice to have a better idea what type of park development could be accommodated there and to what extent this applicant will participate in that when the subdivision is built. Also, she said they are seeming to get down to more final trail design or pathways. j Johnson said she was forwarding this application with the three Commission options: 1) Forward this project to Council as a 19 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 consolidated two-step review. She said she had provided 42 Conditions of Approval, some of which may be able to be changed based on any current information; 2) Additional time has been set aside on May 9 if not enough time to accommodate the public review at this meeting tonight, the Commission could table after some discussion; and 3) the Commission consider this a conceptual review and declare that this should be full four steps. Chairman Kerr stated that before hearing the applicant's presentation he would like to explore the three options, because it may affect the length and nature of the presentation if the Commission decided that it will be a four step review. Garton stated that in reading the packet, she had a hard time not wanting to do a four step review because she thought it was a very sensitive project. She felt there needed to be a lot of things talked about in this application and she did not feel the Commission could do service to this application and to the public without going through the four steps. She understood wanting to hasten it, we do need housing for the city, for sure, but she stated that this was her feeling. Kerr said he agreed strongly with Garton, and not only that, but it would probably take more additional time than tonight's meeting; - whether a two or four stage process, it will take more time. He felt very strongly that it should be a four-step review, and he felt this was a very sensitive site and there were numerous things to be discussed. Kerr asked Johnson if a motion was required. She answered she had never encountered this before. Kerr stated the Commission could vote to require a four step review, and it seemed to him that they may need some kind of motion. MOTION Garton moved to require a four step review for the Water Place Project. Hunt seconded, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Kerr asked the applicant to proceed with presentation. The applicant asked for a quick synopsis of the four step review. Kerr responded that the Commission looks at it conceptually and makes suggested changes; it then goes to Council for their conceptual review. Then it comes back again to P&Z for final approval and review, along with a list of conditions of approval, and then goes to Council again. The applicant inquired as to this meeting? Kerr answered it would be part of the first conceptual review. ~.. 2-0 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 Garton stated that in her reviewing of the packet, first of all, she is very concerned about the traffic at that area. She said the whole intersection needs redesigning; so, the proposal is adding to traffic and she needs to hear more about the ideas of mitigation with that, which was never mentioned in the packet at all. The City probably needs to kick into the mitigation in that area. She stated there is going to be some ridgeline development, perhaps, and that concerned her a lot. She stated the packet was complete in some ways, but it raised a lot of flags for her that she could not see discussing it all at this meeting. Mooney said that from his point of view, the public process is very necessary for him. To streamline it out .of the way, and keeping it from anybody being able to have a say or their opinion, or for the entire community to have the time for this to settle in, is something he felt very important for the process. Kerr said he had stated a number of his concerns, and anytime he gets a packet with 42 conditions of approval, it says to him that there is a lot of work that needs to be done; not being necessarily critical of the applicant, he felt 42 conditions says there are a lot of issues to be resolved. Mooney stated he was interested in some discussion of this strictly being for City employees and not entering an open bidding process (~ of the housing authority, or lottery, so to speak. He could see there was a necessity, but he liked the idea of the competition. Tom Stevens made presentation on behalf of the City of Aspen Engineering Department. He stated regardless whether it would be two steps or four, he would go through everything basically on the project, because he did not feel since it was conceptual " let's leave something out". He wanted to get it "all out on the table" and get more comments back from the Commission as possible. Stevens stated the issue of the City's position, in one way it is unique, and in the other it is not. Essentially, what we have is, an employer proposing to build housing, on its own land, for its own employees. That is fairly normal, and where it gets unique is, that employer is the City. He said that brings up the whole issue of public money, availability to the public, etc. The way Caruso has set up the potential finance area, it would not use public money and the units themselves would be f inanced by the purchasers, and therefore, would not need to be made available to the public. He stated this was a threshold issue with this project, the fact that the City is producing housing for its own employees, on its own land. 1 21 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 The process began with neighborhood meetings and two different meetings were held. He stated they got two levels of concerns from those meetings; one was the traffic on Doolittle Road, and one was the visual impacts of this project on the immediate properties. Stevens stated they have been able to incorporate, as much as possible, those concerns into the design of the project. He stated the two meetings shaped the architecture, where the buildings went, and the level of the proposal for improvements to Doolittle Road. Stevens stated that Johnson had mentioned some major issues that planning staff had with this project. He said he thought they really go beyond that. He stated there are threshold issues beyond the visual aspect of the project and he felt that gets back to the City being the developer of the project. One of the first projects that Stevens did was for the hospital and they were in a very similar situation as the City. They had an emergency response personnel who, by law, needed to be within 20 minutes of the hospital,but were living in Carbondale or Glenwood, 40 and 60 minutes away. The hospital decided to take their own problem and solve it by constructing affordable housing on their own property. He felt this was the same exact situation; there are emergency response personnel, and even once you get out of emergency response personnel, the City employs between 160 and 180 people and is one of the biggest employers in the valley. Therefore, just by reason, he stated they would have the greatest need for solving their own affordable housing. Stevens said, the City has to step forward and provide affordable housing for themselves, not only for emergency response personnel, but just all levels of housing. The City has had trouble attracting people to job openings because the housing problem has not been dealt with. Stevens stated the legal mechanism is in place to sell the lots. He said that was one of his questions early on, can the lots get transferred without going to a vote; the legal mechanism is there to accomplish that. Within the technical items that Johnson brought up, 8040 Greenline, access, visual impacts, he said he would get to those later. He said this was a 16 unit project, with essentially nine units that they are requesting a category of resident-occupied and seven units under category 4. Stevens said, the way it works out, eight of the units are single-family detached homes on their lot and categorized as resident-occupancy; there is one resident-occupied duplex unit, three category 4 duplex units, and four category 4 townhouse units. The rational for categorizing these units into resident-occupied is not to push to sale price; they already know who the employees are and their kind of money. Instead, the units will be priced consistent with the category 3, category 4 guidelines. The reason 22 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2,. 1995 the City is persuing resident occupied, is to free up some of the asset and income restrictions on the units. The biggest issue with the site is the access. The other issue with the site is the surrounding density. He stated the problem is, virtually every project he has brought before this Commission, Council, and the County Planning & Zoning and Council, is burdened with the same thing. At this point and time, no one wants affordable housing in their neighborhood. He stated at this time, private sector and the public sector, are looking for every square inch of ground possible for affordable housing. The impacts that are presented by this. project are threefold: visual, traffic, and on the Water Plan operation itself. In terms of visual impact, you will be able to see these houses, he stated he cannot tell the Commission you won't see them. He did not think this was such a bad thing, in light of the fact, that while this could potentially be considered a ridgeline because of the Castle Ridge cut, which has created a ridge there, it is not a natural ridge and it does not really define the,character of the valley. What can be done is back the units off that cut line as far as possible, and keep the design of the units as low as possible. By pulling the units off of the slope, a fair amount of the existing scrub oak in front of Lots 7,8,9 and 10 can be retained which will help substantially in screening the units. Traffic is one of the major things they have been wrestling with. RFTA is about 1,000 ft. away at Castle Creek Road. One thing that is unique about the project is, there is one employer, one location for people to come to and makes it ideal for RFTA van service. Doolittle Road, while possibly adequate for a Water Plant, is not adequate for a housing development and will have to be increased substantially. The burden of the increase Of Doolittle Road will, in part, fall upon the residents, and, in part, on the City. The platform of the road needs to be widened, grades need to be manipulated some, as much as possible, and drainage needs to be improved. He felt Doolittle Road could be made to work, with the exception of one thing; the first turning radius on the road is approximately 70 feet in diameter and code requires it to be 100 feet. He said they could make that, but the impacts of making that road 100 feet, are substantial. It is recommended, therefore, the turning radius be left as is and just improve the pavement, drainage and maintenance on that road. Stevens stated once they actually get into the design of the project, one of the things that they started to do from the very bpginning was rather than add plants to make this project look nice, but keep from substracting plants. To the greatest extent possible, he said they could preserve the oak grove there, as they were mature, and would provide some screening and quality of life ( 23 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 value. Stevens felt the combination of the architecture, the preservation of the oaks, and the introduction of new oak would be the best solution. He stated they could do whatever the Parks Department, the Commission and Council feels best. He did not believe adding a row of spruce or fir along the top of the cut slope is the answer. He said eight of the single-family homes, and the four duplexes; all will be serviced off the upper portion of Doolittle Drive. They will all be serviced off of private drives that come off of Doolittle; the drives have been sized to handle fire access and that is why there is a 100 ft. circle cul-de-sac in the center. He stated that represented the least amount of pavement to accommodate fire access and turning movements at the site. On the lower four townhomes the access has been changed, and they wanted to align it more closely with the Twin Ridge Drive access. Parking on the project; he said you cannot provide too much parking functionally, but to provide too little parking is like "shooting yourself in the foot". On the four-plex, each unit gets two spaces per the unit and then there is a guest space assigned to each unit, essentially, there are three spaces per unit. One of the spaces is in a garage, one is on the surface pertaining to that, and the other is on a remote parking site for guests coming off of the entryway. With the single-family homes, each has a two-car garage and two potential parking spaces behind. He said they will convenent against vehicle storage there, so there will be no motorhomes and junk-cars sitting in the driveways. Stevens stated they ended up with an overall average of 3.6 spaces per unit. Scott Smith presented the architecutural program giving a complete overview of the units. He stated the construction materials that would be used are log construction, a 6-8 in. diameter log on the exterior for durability and visability. The roofs would be a dark colored, heavy textured asphalt shingle that would help also minimize the appearance from a distance. He brought in an aerial photo of the site area for the Commission to view. Stevens stated that another thing that came out of the neighborhood meetings was the need for a park or some sort children's playground; some land designated for use by the public. Stevens said they have strategically located at the top of the site, directly north of the four-plex building, an area they have identified for future open space development. He felt that was a good area to identify now, SO that, in the future, if the neighborhood should decide, and especially if Castle Ridge, who would be just as much a beneficiary of this as anybody, would decide to designate as a play area. Lastly, Stevens stated that of the 42 conditions of approval, there 24 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 were only about half a dozen that needed to be talked about. The rest of the conditions, they acknowledged they could incorporate into the plans very easily. Kerr asked to take public comment at this point. Robert Gillen, a Castle Ridge resident, living right below the proposed development, had big concerns with the project. He was concerned about the traffic, but mainly, the four-plex. He said there was one little lot of open space and if the four-plex was put as proposed, it would take away the last view of the mountains, the only open space Castle Ridge has left. Phil Bloomwell, a resident of Twin Ridge. He had a problem with the preference of Aspen employees; he felt their emergency response was no greater than other businesses in town, the police and fire departments, for example. He would like to see the power line buried, put a playground in, the Heatherbed Trail not blocked, safety and traffic issues addressed fully, and the issue that this is not public money, but City of Aspen money did not sit well with him. He felt we are all taxpayers, City of Aspen owns it, and stated "we tell the City of Aspen what to do with our money" . Georgia Taylor, a resident of Twin Ridge, stated she was concerned about the concept of having a playground and increasing more children traffic when there is now too much traffic. She was concerned about the scale and impact to the neighborhood in regard to the construction for the next 10 to 12 years. Tom ( ? ), Castle Creek resident, asked if the fire department looked at the access to the property. Stevens answered that prior to this meeting there was a development review committee meeting and the fire department recommended improvements to the grading of pavement. The biggest concern of the fire department was that if that road was snowed over and a car blocked the road, the fire department, if called, would be slowed down. The fire department recommended sprinkler systems for the units. He felt the P&Z should consider putting a limit of no more than 2-3 years in developing the whole project and finishing it. John Walla, resident of Twin Ridge, voiced his concerns and stated he did not agree with Stevens' assessment of the ridgeline, he felt it to be a natural ridgeline and the road impacts needed to be ironed out. As for the City selling the land to people, he was not certain he could concur personally, on that, and he said the question of chlorine was not clear, and was concerned about the snow removal program, and four-plexes on the project. 2-5 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 ( ? ), resident of Twin Ridge, stated his main concern was the traffic and was curious if there could be another entrance to the project on the other side of the ridge. He felt it would help offset traffic. Stevens stated they did look into that option, but ruled in out. Kerr asked for any additional public comment, there was none, he closed the public hearing. Garton asked regarding ROs. She stated they had had work sessions on ROs, but has never seen a final ordinance or amendment about an RO at all. Dave Tolen answered there had been joint county and city work sessions and they finally came to a resolution and most of that has been incorporated into the 1995 housing guidelines which has not been published yet. The date it is effective is May 22nd. Chaikovska stated she would like to understand the financing of the project. Stevens answered that there was a plan that Alpine Bank had initiated, and the bank has a lending limit of 2 million dollars and they are at that in their structure, so in order to get the single-family homes going, they are using a finance plan. What it involves is, rather than the developer finance the entire project as one package, the lots are sold, and the homes are built i under construction loans made by the bank, to the individuals. The bank essentially loans the purchaser of the unit the funds required to build all portions of the project, including the home. The very first draw on that is for the land, subsequent draws are for construction. The bank administers all of the loans simultaneously, so the developer and the contractor submit one draw per month and get one payment per month. So, it is not the case of 16 little different projects happening on their own schedule. All purchasers and all financing has to be in place before the project is begun. Chaikovska asked if they thought they had the market for the homes. Cris Caruso answered they have a pretty strong market. Mooney asked if the City was putting the property up for collateral, or how was the loan collateralized. Stevens, stated in this case, I don't know. Garton asked if the land was encumbered at all by the open space? The Thomas property, long ago, was purchased by the City. Stevens stated that was his understanding. She said it is then the City's discretion how this land is used? Stevens said he had met with the City attorney and it was the City's property and at their discretion. Garton asked if there was still any debt on the property? Stevens stated, not that he knew of. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 Mooney wanted to go back and clarify who would qualify for an RO in Category 4. He asked are we really funding affordable housing for people who are blue-collar, emergency response type of city employees, police or snowplow drivers, or are we building single family homes for people who are moving up here to take white- collar executive positions and a lure of the City to offer this as some kind of a bonus situation. He said that goes back to the idea that the City controls the project, there isn't a lottery, and the City has the ability to put their people in there. He said the analogies really don't fit, because if we are building an affordable housing project, he felt we need to build density here. He felt duplexes needed to be built and we .need to revisit the idea of what categories are really going to live here. We can very easily find out from the City, who qualifies for this, who needs this, and what categories they qualify for. He did not feel this was a single-family project, and if that is the case, he did not see the four-plex on the intersection as being a practical application. He stated up on the flat spot is where it should be constructed and if the Commission is really doing a conceptual analysis, that is one of the keystones for him. Mooney felt the 82 intersection was really important, and the phasing of construction because of the style of financing. If there are toxic levels of chlorine 1,000 yards away from this site, can the Commission really mitigate some kind of accident plan. He felt the County was going to have to get involved. MOTION Hunt moved to table the item until May 9th, and continue the public hearing to the same date. Chaikovska seconded, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. TRUEMAN LOT SPA AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR GARDEN CENTER Mary Lackner, Planning, represented for staff. She stated there were two aspects to the application; one is a conditional use review to put a garden center in the Truman Center, the other request is to change the Lot 1 SPA. Due to the hour and the other items on the agenda, staff felt it best to go ahead with the Conditional Use Review, but the changes to the Truman SPA, move to another agenda. 27 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 MOTION Hunt moved to consider the conditional use review on the agenda and table action and continue the public hearing for the Truman Lot 1 SPA Amendment to June 6th. Garton seconded, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. TRUEMAN CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR GARDEN CENTER Mary Lackner, Planning, represented for staff. She said the open space requirements of the Truman SPA may have to be varied if the applicant decides to go into the open courtyard area. Staff has concerns about the very actively used open space in the summer time. She said also, to get around the open space issue, there are a lot of large overhangs around the building, and if they put the use to the overhang areas, it does not come out of the open space calculations. The staff recommends that this use for a garden center go forward, but just be located on the overhangs of the building. Staff does recommend approval with the listed conditions of approval. Philip Bloemsma, representing applicant, stated he had no presentation. He stated he would like to see the garden center in the common area, the brickyard. He said he could understand where they might be encroaching on open space, but the intent of the Garden Center is not City Market; no mulch and trees. They only want to be able to place planters and flowers, a few flower beds for people to purchase. Bloemsma stated there would be no cash register or transactions taken place outside and he felt that picnic tables and the gathering area works with the idea, and actually, enhances it. Garton stated she felt it would be very attractive, but as she read through the application, she was very concerned about taking open space away from the public. She stated it has become a public plaza. If in some way, this could be intermingled and the public would never be told to leave or be in the way of a sale, she said it could happen. She said the open space at the Cantina has now become the Cantina and the proposal was an enhancement, but she felt that the public must feel first, it is a public space and plants could be picked out, taken inside, and sold. The hearing was opened for the public and Shelley ( ? ), who would be doing all the plants and is a sales clerk from Sashae Florists spoke and said she did the flower beds and pots at the Cantina. She said they were not proposing to take any space away, , just a way to create an area where people could hang out. There 28 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 would be no bags of potting soils, no racks, shovels, etc., but just flowers and hanging baskets all around the overhangs that will be maintained by either herself or the maintenance crew at the Trueman Center. There would be no selling; if there was a pot, it would have a Sashae card on it saying if someone would like to purchase this plant, please come into Sashae. Basically, she stated what they were asking was to decorate the courtyard with items that are for sale. She appreciated being offered the overhangs for an area for the plants, but there was no sun there, and it was very dark. Garton stated again that it was an enhancement, but it is enlarging commercial space as we realize happened at Cantina. Chaikovska said she used the area, herself, a lot. She said it was an area where, not only do people park their dogs, but they park their children. She felt that people who use do use it for the above reasons, would not be able to anymore with the proposal. Mooney stated he was fundamentally for enhancing the Truman Plaza if it is done to make it more comfortable as a public space, but to extend 600 sq. ft. of retail space onto Store 205, is something he was not in favor of at all. Buettow said he thought the applicant's intentions were probably good, but he felt it was a public open space. Hunt stated he had no problem with potted plants being dispursed around the open space, but he had a real problem with the extension of the retail activity in that open space. He mentioned that perhaps they could accomplish that without expansion and sales into an open space. He stated he agreed with staff, that it belongs under the roof somewhere. Kerr said he did not know of any prohibitions in the open space requirements for someone putting potted plants and decorating it. He said he was not suggesting it, but if someone put a little note that said, landscaping provided by Sashae, for example, without any pricing on it; in effect, the applicant would be accomplishing the same thing. Kerr felt the applicant could accomplish the goal; beautify the plaza area, and let it be known that Sashae provided the beautiful flowers. Mooney stated the building was built with overhangs and chances are it would not have been approved if vendors were all along the overhangs. He said that to extend the retail space now into walkways, he was not willing to go along with it. He felt that was growth without mitigation and against the basic underlying zoning philosophy, and setting a serious precedent by allowing this type , of activity. 2.9 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 MOTION Hunt moved to deny Conditional Use Review for a Garden Shop as proposed before us this evening, basically with the recommendations to the applicant to try to accomplish what they wanted to do in the form of beautification of the open space. Garton seconded, vote commenced with all unanimously for denial. MAROON CREEK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Mary Lackner presented on behalf of staff and the applicant, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, was represented by Tom Newland. Lackner stated she had no presentation, but would make comments after Newland presented. Newland stated it was proposed to construct a temporary pedestrian bridge Maroon Creek just to the north of the existing Maroon Creek Vehicle Bridge. It will be temporary in nature and will provide for a needed safety improvement until a new vehicular bridge, which will include pedestrian access as well, is built. He said it was felt the pedestrian bridge would be there between 5 and 7 years before the new bridge got built. The bridge is a pretty straight forward design, and based on a lot of the bridges that are seen around Aspen. It is a 600 foot-long bridge approximately that they plan on placing, in three sections, on two piers coming up from the valley floor. Newland said he noticed in the conditions of approval it is stated that staff recommends approval if it can be found that the piers are not located within the 100-year floodplain. He stated he took a little closer look at that this day with the conceptual plans that he had, and determined that the base of the foundation of the piers was going to be between 1/2 a foot and 2-1/2 feet above the 100-year floodplain in the area, and that is what they are committing to in the design. Newland stated that the pier to the west is the closest to the floodplain; it is only about 1/2 foot above the base flood elevation, and they are willing to further enforce that bridge there to make sure, in the unlikely event, that a 100-year event comes down in the next 5-7 years, that that pier is protected. Newland handed out pictures and stated in showing phe pictures, that it was the most cost effective way to get the safety improvements in, in the quickest amount of time. 30 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 Lackner stated her comments were in the memorandum (attached in record). She said she did have additional conditions of approval that came out after her memorandum was put out. Lackner stated one of the issues was the visual impact or mitigation. Staff was concerned about the overhead power lines across the bridge. Mooney said he was in favor of this project, and excited that it was finally being done. He was concerned about someone 11 j oy- riding" across the bridge. Newland stated that was a good point, and they were planning on putting some power lights in the middle. Mooney asked if it would be lit at night. Newland stated they were going to provide lighting on both sides with the typical overhead street lights. There is no lighting on it in the middle right now, in the beginning to reduce the visual impacts, especially at night. Hunt asked if the bridge was going to carry the power line that presently expands the .... Newland stated it would be underneath the deck. Hunt also asked if there were any future places to use the bridge, 7-10 years down the line. Newland said, yes, there were, and one of the places being discussed, was next to Tiehack. He said this bridge could be broken down to three, two hundred foot spans, which could be used in a variety of places within the county. Hunt stated it looked likely that we would lose this bridge during the construction period. Newland said they were placing it as close to the existing bridge as they can to stay away from the site of the new bridge, wherever that might be; they figure somewhere downstream. They will attempt to keep that bridge up as long as possible during construction of the new bridge, however, they cannot commit to that happening, there may be a time frame there where it is just impossible for CDOT to finish off the bridge without removing that bridge first. Hunt said, that is for sure, because it seemed to him that CDOT had almost nestled its bridge along the existing one. Hunt asked if there had been any effort on CDOT's part to look at using the existing bridge later as a pedestrian bridge, but in a different location over Maroon Creek. He said it was not impossible in this day and age. Newland stated historically it would be a real pain to move it, but it can be moved and would take about a five year process, but it was not CDOT's decision. Hunt stated the benefits to the community would be so much greater having that bridge on the correct side of the highway, than having the highway in the existing right-of-way, more or less. Hunt said he just wanted to have that thrown out and will keep after it, and if it takes five years, it's time to start to ask the right people. Stan Clauson stated that they were really working to expand the thinking, and there has been a lot of work on these issues and he thought they had been somewhat successful. He said Hunt's words 4 31 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 were heard and would be taken to heart. Clauson stated, from the standpoint of which bridge goes where, there are no guarantees at this point. MOTION Hunt moved to approve the Maroon Creek Prestrian Bridge Stream Margin Review, subject to the conditions 1-7 on Planning Memorandum date 2 May 1995. Hunt asked Lackner to read off additional conditions of approval 8-11 to be included in the motion. Those conditions were: Condition 8) It shall be a condition of approval that construction activity, including staging, be outside the 100-year floodplain, and that construction fencing be installed at the perimeter of the committed construction zone; Condition 9) The applicant has agreed to obtain an excavation permit from the City for work within the public right-of-way; Condition 10) The development plan must include a traffic control plan prepared by a state certified traffic control supervisor; Condition 11) Prior to the issuance of the City right-of-way excavation permit, the applicant shall provide a development plan that clearly shows the proposed development plan, including and not limited to, the 100-year floodplain, the limits of construction activity and location of construction fencing and hay bales. That plan shall be submitted to the Army Corp of Engineers in the Colorado Department of Transportation. Hunt said he included in the motion Conditions 8-11. Mooney seconded. Discussion of Motion Chaikovska thought the bridge "ugly" . Clauson stated the engineers said they could paint the bridge as easily as not. Chaikovska said, "great". Vote commenced, unanimous in favor, motion carried. BUCKHORN LODGE REZONING AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR CHANGE IN USE MOTION Hunt moved to table the proposal to May 16, 1995, Chaikovska seconded, vote was unanimous in favor, motion carried. Chairman Kerr adjourned meeting at 10:00 p.m. 12 % 3''P e .. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 2, 1995 \t Respectfully submitted: hhakon Â»3, 0_cuuu-11- 6 Sharon M. Carrillo, Deputy City Clerk j 33 1\ EÂ«HIBIT B MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department (3~. I)ate: April 14, 1995 Re: City of Aspen Parks & Golf Maintenance Facility PUD Substantial Amendment, Conceptual Development Plan, GMQS Exemption & Conditional Use Review (585 Cemetery Lane, a portion of Lot 1, Aspen Golf Course Subdivision) Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. PUD Plat Amendment - When the review process is complete, prior to issuance of any building permits, a PUD plat amendment must be provided for filing. The plat must include at least an existing conditions map, proposed site plan and proposed landscaping plan. Two sets of mylars will be required. 2. Site Drainage - The application is not thorough concerning site drainage. If the project is approved, storm runoff drainage design must be included on the building permit drawings. The plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site as required by Section 24-7- 1004.C.4.f in the City Code. There appears to be sufficient area that percolation into landscaped spaces of flows from newly constructed impermeable surfaces may suffice. 3. Sidewalk. Curb and Gutter - There are several possibilities for sidewalk and or trail improvements. Construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter is required by City Code (Sec. 19-98) for new construction. Sidewalk needs in the area are identified by the "Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System" Plan (the "Ped Plan") for Cemetery Lane and Highway 82. a. The applicant should be required to construct a short pedestrian interconnect between the existing trail and the RFTA bus stop and shelter on Highway 82. There is an existing "beaten path" for the twenty or so feet between the trail and the bus stop. b. Cemetery Lane is a location that has been identified by the "Ped Plan" as a "primary (commuter)" pedestrian route. It has not been identified actively by the Neighborhood Advisory Committee as needing sidewalks immediately. Several opportunities for obtaining 1 sidewalk segments have been bypassed and agreements to construct have been accepted in lieu. The Engineering Department recommends that sidewalk construction on Cemetery Lane commence with this application and that the applicant be required to construct sidewalk along Cemetery Lane and around the corner on Highway 82 to the bus stop with curb and gutter at the comer. The Cemetery Lane right-of-way width is substandard. The width is 60'. City Code requires a 100' width for an arterial. There is no five or ten year plan for Cemetery Lane improvements. Judging from the current cornmunity guidelines, it is difficult to imagine forming an improvement district, condemning and acquiring right-of-way, and providing 2- 12' travel lanes, 2-6' bike lanes, 2-8' parking lanes, a 5' buffer on each side and a 5' sidewalk on each side for a total of 72 feet. It appears that the community will go with what it has now, a 60' wide right-of-way. This suggests no on-street parking or parking on one side only with a slightly reduced buffer space between the curb and the sidewalk. In any case of staying with the 60' wide ROW, the sidewalk would be adjacent to the existing property lines. 4. Mass Transit - It may be appropriate to require that the applicant pave the "shoulder" adjacent to their property used by the RFTA buses for entry and exit to the bus shelter, and install curb and gutter along that paved edge. 5. Access & Driveways - The proposed access is too close to both a curve and a number o f trees to provide safe sight distance to the north. We recommend relocating the new access to the north property boundary. This is adjacent to the Sharp property. The applicant should work with that property owner to explore the option. 6. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public right-of-way. 7. Trash & Utility Area - The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area, which may not be in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers. 8. Parking - The parking space requirements have not been well defined. However there appears to be sufficient parking for the needs. The final plat must indicate, number, label and dimension the parking spaces. The plat should also contain the statement of the number of employees at the site and the number of parking spaces intended for employee versus guest use. If conditions change in the future, additional parking may be required. 10. Street Lights - With other land use applications, we have required that cobra head lights on utility poles be replaced with standard antique street lights. The last antique light leaving town is a twin globe light at the west end of the Castle Creek Bridge. There are two cobra head lights at the intersection of Cemetery Lane and Highway 82. Perhaps those lights should be upgraded with this 2 development. Or, with the impending entrance to Aspen discussions, perhaps these street lights should be postponed and an agreement to install in the future provided. There is one street light across Cemetery Lane from the project and no other lights for quite some distance down Cemetery Lane. There is no formal street light plan for Cemetery Lane. The plan that was created by the 1988 street light project was lights at corners and mid-block. The need for new street lights along Cemetery Lane should be discussed. 11. Bicycles - Employee and visitor use of bicycles was not discussed. The applicant should probably be required to provide bicycles for employee use and bike racks for employee and visitor use. 12. Other Conditions of Approval - a. No tracking of mud onto City streets shall be permitted during construction. b. The applicant shall agree to join any improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent and neighborhood public rights-of-way. c. For the applicant' s protection, as well as any possible grantees, the final plat should state that all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy No. , dated have been shown on the survey. 13. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of development within public rights-o f-way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from city streets department (920-5130). cc: Cris Caruso George Robinson Black Shack Studio M95.92 3 1. -1.Z~GTI- Memorandum To: Leslie Lamont, Planner CC: From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal I)ate: April 3,1995 Subject: City OfAspen Parks and Golf Maint. Facility Leslie, This project shall have an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. This system shall be in accordance with NFPA 13. Provisions shall also be made for the storage of all hazardous materials. 2~you have any questions please contact me, 2235 g/-' Ed -A Jlspe. -lonsofidated 6anitation *strict 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 FAX #(303) 925-2537 Sy Kelly Â· Chairman Michael Kelly Albert Bishop Â· Treas. Frank Loushin Louis Popish Â· Secy. Bruce Matherly, Mgr. April 4. 1995 :t 0\ Leslie Lamont Planning Office < APR 0 6 1995 ~ 130 S. Galena Aspen. CO 81611 St Â·â€¢-p Re: City of Aspen Parks & Golf Facilit,- PUD ~4,.,$ ,Dear Leslie: the District currently has surricient line and treatment capacity to serve this development. Service is contingent upon compliance with District Ruies and Reguiations which are on file an the District office. We will require the instaliation of oil and sand separators in the enclosed areas where vehicles are maintained and stored. We would also require rhat the agricuiturai/ chemical storage areas be designed so that Yertili.zers and other chemicals could not be accidentally introduced into the public sewer system. Preliminary engineering =10 improve the on site sewer sysrem was completed in 19340. ine current four inch diameter on site collection system is inadequate and should be replaced with an ,. the main line serving the eighn inch diameter line. Sy aoing SO. various Duildi:123 on sine. could be dedicated to the Dis Lrict for future maintenance. The existing four inch system is shailow and routinely freezes up in the winter months. Please call if you have any questions. Sincereiv. Bruce Matherly District Manager EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 Â· 1986 Â· 1990 Regional and National Â¢01 ~ LMAR 2 0 1995 ~ MEMORANDUM CS..E:.'. TO: STAN CLAUSON, COIMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: PHIL OVEREYNDER, WATER DIRECTOR 15~--~1 DATE: MARCH 20, 1995 SUBJECT: WATER SERVICE FOR EXPANDED PARKS AND GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE BUILDING The City of Aspen presently provides water service to the subject property. An expansion of the building to include toilet, work sink, and lavatory is consistent with our service plans for the area. The Aspen Water Department has adequate facilities to serve the proposed expansion and will provide service subject to compliance with current water system standards. A water utility connection permit will be required to provide for the expansion of water use as proposed. Our review of the building plans and issuance of permits will be necessary to ensure compliance with City of Aspen Standards. CC: Rebecca Baker, Parks David Bellack, Assistant City Attorney PO:rl /phi12/mmebldg.ws APR 20 '95 01:07PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC P. 1 ME:MOMBIDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office PROM: Cindy Christensen. Housing Office DATE: April 20, 1995 RE: City of Aspen Parks & Golf Maintenance Facility PUD Substantial Amendment, Conceptual Development Plan, GMQS Exemption and Conditional Use Review Parcel ID No. 2735-111-09-001 ISSUE: The City of Aspen Parks Department is proposing to construct 9,000 additional square feet of storage space to the current City of Aspen Parks and Golf Maintenance Facility siter and approximately 1,000 square feet of additional office space. UCKGRQUND: The City of Aspen Parks Department is classified as an essential public facility and pursuant to Section 8-104, C, b, {ii): A development 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 policy protection, and solid waste disposal. It shall 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. RECOMMENDATION: Even though this is classified as an essential public facility, according to Section 8-104, C, b, (ii), the City still has to mitigate for housing. The bulk of the additional development of 9,000 equare feet is strictly storage space so will not count in mitigation for employees. The 1,000 square feet for additional office space has to be mitigated and is calculated as follows: Office (O) : 3.00 employees/1,000 square feet 3.00 + 1,000 X 1,000 square feet X 60* = 1.8 FTE's Therefore, a total of 1.8 employees need to be mitigated. The Housing Board has established priorities in the Affordable Housing Guidelines regarding mitigating affordable housing impacts. The priorities are as follows: 1. On-site housing 2. Off-site housing, including buydown concept 3. Cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu. April 27,1995 APR 2 7 1995 ~ DEVELOPMENT Leslie Lamont Aspen & Pitkin Regional 4SPEN /9\0~~~ Planning & Zoning Dept. 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Leslie, In regards to the city of Aspen's parks and golf maintenance facility conceptual development plan, we believe we have an alternative plan that would have tess impact and be more efficient. Please refer to attached for location of proposed. The reasons we find our plan to be better are as follows: 1. In the proposed location, the storage building will be somewhat hidden and less of an eyesore. The existing ponds and trees will help to hide it. 2. With the already existing drive/entrance there will be ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO BUILD A BRIDGE across the east pond (hence less work, less money, no defacing ofthe pond, etc.) 3. For residents, the noise level will not increase as the existing trees and ponds will help to absorb the increased noise from use. 4. Efficiency, the location is more centrally located to the other existing buildings and no additional pavement will be required. We feel strongly that our alternative plan will better serve the community not only in price but also in keeping with Aspen's goal of more "open space". We also feel that if the city sold some ofthe unused junk that just sits there scattered around, Aspen would not have to build a shed to store it all, and may have a little money left over. Imagine that. Sincerely, Bob Sharp, Bill, Pat, Carole & Ian Sharp 2 UGG E Cr- (0 * 1 411/99 70 GE-0 1-/Ew J 1 U.* W . 'A # C.-4./. Wit , 1 V L- ., . 1,-T*d , S rf'35 T 1& top Ed _ I. 4 1, 1 - - kg) C . T- 1 0 41 --7-UITE-- - -Ma.,A-- . / 1. HEEFS *015C 06 2 W P Â£ E-1 0,- A 2 21Â¥ C1 ' 44..0145 1.- t. , 3 A ...ov,3 A.6--- 26 B)03. , &.grTIvA,Reve..74 ~~~'~ IF-:714=~11/ >@0> CA : 2.h. .p , , 7- 4 2 7-A y 0- s B u N k Â£- f ti i + i 1 9 Ke-*29, Ofet dr/0,0 -0 4 â‚¬104' . -lkirreer,vt IC ./ r.,t /-'' .1,4('~7-1/,AMMU"toit\\.1 1 Fo a Â£Â£50 â€¢/ 6/.â€¢r-v ..r-,vt -S - IliNI:. 1 41 9/ lit> 5 eff'er,2 4, s (44) th 3/(4 1 - \1 Â· k \ I h .33 -1 1 1 , ~-cÂ·j./, 0.-'' \'., 0 * U 1 C I Ou a t. 17=-<424>1 1Â«23/19..1, k{72-6/ 4,1.41 1 1. I -, -I,Y - .27' -- r29 ; I -/V Â»-( 4FTme# 11\ -U ,-M#*fi##HETTibik:,,T * '6 I , / r , ' ' .0, 2 4#10- 02-33 - /, i.: 'A 61 '14 ... 4%,4 449.4 ~ , H.// 7 J ./ 24 3 d p ~~~1/~ WA' ~ Â· rll l. -, 11 k . -Err\Vij- --1 F >-30~ 1'1~~ --54 44 -4 * Lk- : \ UÂ·1 - ' 4'd i .Â· 1 Ill. ' --AÂ¢TVU\\\\//1/88"/\\\R\\\\,\1'~AU~*10011//" '0 - U*ill li'll ~1% 1 -F' 1 1 11 f ' 1 :. ':1Â»145.~->~ -AINUMPAR\l/RJU#/79&- f Al:+61 1 1 1 - JI-3.IC=.Ilimm.Ima-,4 ' 6/TE ML AN- -ami-ill 11 j .,Ate : I': 50'. 00 # Wimam Sharp p - 3 4 294 Box 8630 Aspen, CO 81612 Â¥23-400 6- I1 . kES L i E CA M 0 1,/r A RKS /4 eAr MAiNTE-NAÂ·*c g- 97-OR K EXPANS#oN . Gj O E s-r, ovs, ICâ€¢LIE- p 5 ~ear li-~u,PHEut '7-Ff,I-r 4+At BcÂ« y R.'PLACED .â€¢ b .ov ,# Usr! 11+ Â¥ go You â€žrt n ALE* i y t n A-t w 'iâ€¢ v r.'c E-Qu,e *can -3 1#,+ V po Â¥ #CLUCK 5 . rre "4/170 GAÂ«.â€¢6 C 4 0,0 # 7-,O.4. 6Â¥*1 c Â« SPACE ' 7 997 A COVEâ‚¬,co COTRANcer ~0/H'it w N â‚¬Â»E o $ B E H /4 /+ f *4' v'* U. *râ€¢r~-E \A} â€¢+Y =>0 Yov Mar,rb :Fu<% A }6(44 Â¥ Act L,TIF ,> \#,ty *E- E- P LUN#*7â‚¬ .10' SueÂ¥ 67 8â€¢ill Â¥#.w m./c Sury#G-C D VJRY Wor ICE-ke -56'YE- E-quiPHEV/ ~ 1+ CVL E YOU U $ 9 Cr , 4 12i.. 50,â€¢,to t $ Wiffidin SAarp i 125-(066- Smc 8630 1 Aspen. CO #tt 81612 \1 391 C E-,4â‚¬1-en Y L+NE $.. i '4* 4 4 ./ April 19, 1995 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: City of Aspen Parks and Golf Department's Land Use Application for expansion of Maintenance Storage Facilities Dear Commissioners, We are writing you to request the approval of the City of Aspen Parks and Golf Department's Land Use application for the construction of a 9,000 square foot storage building and the expansion of 1,000 square feet of office space at the existing golf and parks maintenance and operations facility on Cemetery Lane. We believe the existing facilities are inadequate to meet the needs of the operations for these departments. The amount of equipment and supplies that are stored outside is inexcusable. The City has hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in this equipment and it should not be left out in the rain, sun and snow on a continual basis. This severely cuts down on the equipment life, increases the breakdowns on equipment, and increases costs for golfers, and taxpayers in general. The USGA has commented on the lack of adequate maintenance and storage facilities in every repon on the City of Aspen Golf Course. The request for expansion of office space is also justifiable. Currently there are eight people sharing the small office building. There is no space to conduct a meeting without kicking someone out of their office and even then it is difficult to accommodate more than four to five people in an office. We have reviewed the proposed design and feel it is an appropriate design for the course and efficient for the facility area. The proposed building is well hidden from the view of the golf course and surrounding neighbors, as well as improving the current exposed maintenance yard. We urge your support of this project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. Sincerely, -~ 6.chuck Torinus President, Aspen Golf Committee E*HIBIT C PARKS DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES The City of Aspen Parks Department is responsible for a variety of management and maintenance duties, including 32 parks, the mall, pedestrian and bicycle trails, winter nordic trails, 5 miles of street trees, 200+ acres of open space, ditches, and building maintenance. The following list details the specifics of some of the maintenance duties: Parks: Seed, aerify, fertilize, rototill, mow (once a week), plant and maintain flowers, clean up, rake leaves, safety checks, playground checks, oiling picnic tables and trash barrels in 28 parks and properties. Designs, builds and mintains future parks. Trees: Trimming and maintenance of street trees. Approves all tree removal in the city limits. Plants and trims trees in parks and city ROW. Trails: Mowing, litter control, tree and shrub trimming 24 miles for pedestrian trails. Annual fall and spring set up and tear down for 40 miles of nordic trails. Grooming of 40 mile track approximately 3 times per week during ski season. Mall: Plants and maintains flowers, trees and turf. Maintains mall streams and fountains. Maintains mall restrooms and trash removal daily. Maintains brick and playground. Building Maintenance: City Hall and city housing. Ditches: Keeps debris cleared and maintains water level. Irrigation: Installation and maintenance in parks and properties, the mall and Rubey Park. Snow Removal: The mall, Rubey Park, Firehouse, Art Museum, and approximately 4 miles of pedestrian trails. Litter Control: Clean the core and Highway 82 to AABC of trash. Parks.Parks Responsibilities 1 ' ' PARKS DEPARTMENT STAFF: Permanent Staff: Year-round staff Parks Director George Robinson Assistant Parks Director Rebecca Baker Lead Parks Supervisor Ken Collins Trails Supervisor John Shaffner Parks Foreman Steve Slack Irrigation Coordinator Tom Rubel Administrative Assistant Karma Borgquist Mechanic IUEquipment Operator Duane Franklin Heavy Equipment Operator U Scott Maynard Maintenance Operator I James Ayers Maintenance Operator I Luis Contreras Maintenance Operator I Lars Larsen Maintenance Operator I Todd Manzanares M aintenance Operator/I Bartolo Mendoza Maintenance Operator I Martin Mendoza Maintenance Operator I Ramon Perez Trails Maintenance Patrick Fitzharris Temporary Staff: Regular/seasonal employees (returning) and temporary seasonal employees (working one or two seasons only) S ummer: Flower Crew 3 Mowing Crew 3 Mall/Parks Mintenance 2 Parks Maintenance 1 Mall Maintenance 1 Trails Maintenance 1 Winter. Nordic Crew 3 1 CITY OF ASPEN GOLF DEPARTMENT STAFF EMELQIEE Â£QEITIQN Steve Aitken Director of Golf Rich Coulombe Assistant Golf Supervisor Dominic Lanese Assistant Golf Supervisor Jud Brooks Mechanic Rich Severy Supervisor Mike Galvin Irrigation Technician Chris Overall Operator Bruce Giddings Operator Dan Dangler Maintenance Terry Dangler Maintenance Jimmy Rodriguez Maintenance Randy Reimer Maintenance Fitz Scott Maintenance Jim Lutz Maintenance Terry Cagnoni Maintenance Dennis Handley Maintenance John Mitchel Maintenance Open Maintenance Open Maintenance 1 Exhibiek Organizational Li PARKS DEPARTMENT LIST OF EOUIPMENT AND USAGE TIME IN USE VEHICLES: City Trucks (5) 2080 hours Dump Truck 160 hours Stakebed Truck 80 hours Daihatsu Utility Vehicle 880 hours Mitsubishi Utility Vehicle 6 months HEAVY EOUIPMENT: Loader 720 hours Backhoe 200 hours Bobcat 500 hours Bobcat 200 hours Tennant Mall Sweeper 150 hours MISCELLANEOUS EOUIPMENT: Toro 580D Groundsmaster 880 hours Steiner Tractors (3) 720 hours Steiner Tractors (2) 6 months Kubota Tractor 560 hours Cushman Water Sprayer 100 hours Rototiller 40 hours Moibo Mobile Compressor 80 hours Big Compressor 80 hours Water Wiggle (Portable Irrigation System) 80 hours Weedeaters 6 months IMPLEMENTS / ATTACHMENTS: Lily Spreader 64 hours Snowblowers (2) 6 months Snowblades 6 months Snowbrooms 7 months Aerator 120 hours Steiner Aerator 48 hours Bobhoe 80 hours Forks 240 hours Auger 32 hours Kubota Tiller 32 hours Steiner Airfier 48 hours Trencher 40 hours 1 Landscape Rake Flail Mower OTHER STORED ITEMS: 100 bags of seed and 300 bags of fertilizer used each year using 128 square feet of floor space. 52 trash barrels and 24 picnic tables are also stored at the Parks Department in the winter months. Parks.Parks Equipment 2 1994 GOLF EQUIPMENT LIS - EQUIPMENT SIZE USE PER YEAR PLACE STORED 1981 Toyota 4x4 16x6 8000 miles Outside 1984 Toyota 4x4 16x6 7000 miles Outside 1987 Toyota 4x4 16x6 15000 miles Outside 1990 Chevrolet Dump Truck 24x8 4000 miles Outside 1989 Jacobsen LF-100 #1 10x8 400 hours In shop 1989 Jacobsen LF-100 #2 10x8 400 hours In shop 1981 Jacobsen Greensking #3 10x6 250 hours Mower Shed 1982 Jacobsen Greensking #4 10x6 250 hours Mower Shed 1986 Jacobsen Greensking #5 10x6 250 hours Mower Shed 1987 Jacobsen Greensking #6 10x6 275 hours In shop 1989 Jacobsen Greensking #7 10x6 150 hours Mower Shed 1991 Jacobsen Greensking #8 10x6 350 hours In shop 1993 Jacobsen Greensking #9 10x6 300 hours In shop Â· 1990 Toro Sand Pro #2 7x6 150 hours Outside 1993 Toro Sand Pro#3 7x6 250 hours Outside 1971 Cushman #1 11 x5 150 hours Outside 1981 Cushman #2 11 x5 150 hours Outside 1988 Cushman #3 11 x5 150 hours Outside 1990 Cushman #4 11 x5 200 hours Outside 1992 Cushman #5 11 x5 300 hours Outside 1988 Hahn Sprayer 6xl 0 100 hours In shop 1988 Daihatsu Workcart 11 x5 2000 miles Outside 1980 Jacobsen UV-4 Workcart 11 x5 575 hours Outside 1988 Ryan GA-30 3x7 40 hours Beck Shed 1990 Ryan GA-60 12x 14 25 hours Marolt Shed 1989 Toro 216 4x8 400 hours Outside 1992 Toro 325D 4x10 300 hours Outside 1984 Jacobsen F-10 16x9 300 hours Outside 1979 Massey Tractor 17x8 400 hours Outside 1982 Jacobsen G-20 Tractor 11 x8 200 hours Outside 1991 Olathe Sweeper Vac 12x 10 100 hours Marolt Shed 1981 Chevrolet 1/2 ton pickup 20x7 6000 miles Outside 1994 John Deere 2653 4x8 500 hours Outside 1994 Easy Go #1 11 x5 200 hours Outside 1994 Easy Go #2 11 x5 200 hours Outside 1994 Toro 5300D Fairway Mower 10x8 350 hours In shop National Mower 6x 10 250 hours Outside Hand Mowers Weedeaters 0 -4 41 , 94-0 : \ ~ 41> r 1, 1 , - - 9 - l./4244 4 /6 -i W 1, ti 1 , 4Â¥ r?*lk\ \0'..42.z:k#-\ \ /' I ' 4â€ž \ B . r, \. \ 1 I f.or/ZO,Or. r-717%2. 4 14. \ 49 \\ E-stf; \ u~-~~ -1 \ 45*1 '' 9 \ ti \,/./ '. 8/// . _ rÂ»$. 3 \ \4. ' '' ' .,1 ' %- <--*.li ----* 1 121/ !3 ' --3 ! \ -2 \ rÂ», .r\\03 \ 4 $ I- - 3:NA *rzz.42:\ C '' \ Â·14 , c'T.Â·Mz-9 . # -& 2.r -' W. 4\94 6 7/0/1 9 \3~-31Â»4 9 ./2-/4Â© # ix I. 44%4~0~-El 8 - \(9 0.-Oy 41%11 \,/Â»P 93 00#44~- 9 Â«8% 993 FROFO>F P COulf'NIENT ST-DIK* Cuc __LAIOUT 9 -/ 20 40 Arwew 0,000 64 er Exhibit 8 Equipment Layout 4 . 23*009 r..~ 223Â«FAfruchj â€¢ 25.- I ~Â·. Â· --- .... 4 -- I ./ 1 fwilly(Frj Ut// . f , M; fli' n ncep ' /0 91, 34/ /1 - 111 - 13-1 64 T ,>/ 5 <f\\\X\>\ , ~ 1 ./f lit 1.3 ~fl . ~,17 Â·' -/-- ~~Y< (111?f /) ./ Al ! , 7/1'Hir/; ~ ,~Ifthr..it)1 .-1 q> 1 1 - Z \~0401 tr) ~~~1'46~1~44,~:64 ~*A~i, .,2, 0 j 9 . I liwia $ I I ' / , ./tht./=7 .:- 1Â»- . 49 ; .2 i.\ 1 Â· 141' 7 3 ~, 4 .19- 1.-1. I , 0 5 . t 1 -I 2 : .1 1 , 'U 1,1 1. 4 /'AL. -Â· ' /1 , 35*flik -1 /6 .--- 4161 * i .,T.1-11 llc",11 1 1 6/ ~ 1/3 h u / i J 94 9491 MST 1 1 1 )101Â»11.:KI~~fll'lll,1 Â· ~g4~mtial##f)14- ~ < * . 21'1.t~ *- 7 . ~~~f tnpr\2. 'll]JD, -' , â€ž Â£6,#Mr' Zi#< 2 hun'Â¢ A A. ' 44 i 455Â·>i--_ :-4 44 , ciÂ¢,33 F '* f - 932\- - 1 - <lillic J T '. ES I. * \ - r (~L? *jÂ·-:Â£04---t. ~ ~.03 -- ~ * ,- ~ Â· ~ I ~&1% / - ...32244#IDS,terecrw-< il ,-Â·. .tr<PAW /Â·~iÂ·\t<1*~gllt XY & 5 61 111 1 -,--:jfE~&49#<.IJ~%01Â· .,Ul j- , . 1: i -- - --- 1 ,"1*,Wel ~ Â¥0'ffit :- 9,77 111 11111 -- 94 , b,iÂ· - ' L. -UJUJ Jil. 1. U...~&4 C . C , j , 11119-111$--111-11-Jml)11]]8]1: r...:. 2 / 1 ..r : ,~!1~vill}Milift!%1~14~{t-Mf~Â®ililimil U l Â· 1111* , li Z ' 4 Â· i r i i ..Â· d .- Exhibit 6 Proposed Development r /* O-2/ 1/k prw, t/((/ O 1-1,/8.1 74 -51 ntr-r-1 j 0 -2( 9 1\\ UN -t/0/ 1 3 Jr) 07 -/- 2.2 Â·-<4*.6 , f , .6 Â·44*. 4.2 4.-- '. ~*~Ve-it.ru,i :~ 1 *~- ... . ,4Â£Â·Â·t yÂ· i- 09Â· n , ~ ~ ~~-~4~ ~ .~~l.t~ .-~Aqâ€¢,rÂ·Â·Â· -Â·.:,f~'~~ ..D,kÂ·.. Â·.~Â¥z -,Â¢~1~5'~*4. .~Â· WAAiRÂ·Â·Â·Li.t Pt:Ar . . w i. - 48 4, .,/ I :I.-.-/..- I .-I.-/0-- ---- 4...U'Ar-f ./ . 21 ' ./. I 1 Â·Â·ir .\ -/.h / l'.:,- t~= -2*-- :r . *,0.,5 *. .:fi'"&1"Ii'-- . ....4.1 I .-4 ' a ff " ' 4. I - .. 1 6 . .':- .14,4%21,: T-il..,;.ihi.I'ti'~11,17: .flf?f 21. I. 0.44 ./. . f.'*3 ' '4 1,44/4./.+ .., â‚¬4 ''1. ; ~itÂ· :.-.4-_1.0-D t...21-2.5.-1~1--25. ....ccul&2FAi.412@J*.1,2121.1531.1122Â£ft-4-0.&2.21222.12._:-; -.... I. ' City of Aspen Parks and Golf Maintenance Facility Request for Conceptual Development Plan PUD Substantial Amendment, Growth Management Quota Exemption, and Conditional Use March 1995 Submitted to: Aspen/Pitkin County Community Development 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Applicant: City of Aspen Parks Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 (303)920-5120 Prepared by: City of Aspen Parks Department and Black Shack Studio PO Box 276 Aspen, CO 81612 (303)920-1134 -,1.#--'..&-y#n' -e' .C%I.Â·- Ii:..ri~la..--: ;_Â·I- -I-- , 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. Introduction 1 II. Project Site 3 III. Proposed Development A. Previous planning reviews 5 .B. Project Description 7 IV. Development Review Requirements A. Conditional Use 9 B. PUD Amendment 11 C. GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Services 14 V. Exhibits 1. Vicinity Map 2. PUD Plat 3. PUD Utility Easement Map 4. Existing Conditions 5. Exposures 6. Proposed Development 7. Organizational Information - Equipment Lists - Staff 8. Equipment Layout 9. Deeds 10. Planning Application Material - Request to Submit Letter - Pre-application Conference Summary - Agreement for Payment - Land Use Application Form - Mailing List of Adjacent Homeowners f . I. INTRODUCTION The following application requests Conceptual Submission approval of a Substantial Planned Unit Development Amendment (Section 7-903), Conditional Use Review (Section 7-304), and Growth Management Quota System Exemption (Section 8-104 (C)(b)(i-iii) for construction of a mintenance storage building for the City of Aspen Parks and Golf Departments. The applicant, the City of Aspen Parks Department, is proposing to construct 9,000 additional square feet of storage space at the current City of Aspen Parks and Golf Maintenance Facility Site, located at 585 Cemetery Lane. The proposed building would provide covered storage for approximately 115 pieces of equipment and other miscellaneous items necessary for Parks and Golf operational needs. Current maintenance buildings provide 4,610 square feet of storage and maintenance space. The existing area also provides 520 square feet of office space.The development plan proposes approximately 1,000 square feet of additional office space. The area is zoned PUD/Park (P). Park maintenance buildings are a conditional use in the Park zone district. The area, approximately eight acres, has been in its current use since 1976. The original PUD was approved in 1985 which included 2000 square feet for a maintenance building and 520 square feet for office space. A substantial PUD amendment was approved in 1990 for an expansion of the maintenance building, an increase of approximately 2160 square feet This building provides an equipment repair/maintenance area, agricultural and chemical storage, a wood shop and a miscellaneous dry storage area/employee locker room. This application shall review the background of the planning process to date, establish needs for this proposed expansion, discuss the building location and design, and address the pertinent land use regulations stated above. The final note regarding this conceptual review is somewhat unique. Generally, a PUD amendment call be accomplished in a two step process. However, we are requesting a four step process to ensure the project is well designed with as much input on the design process as possible. We are requesting direction from the Planning and Zoning Commission on the proposed design to proceed with the application process and architectural services. Because of the sensitivity of this project as a public facility, we would like to present a design that works for both the surrounding neighbors and golfers as well as a functional building for Parks and Golf maintenance and operations. 1 -* I /*-- i.---- --:I- -I'-'..~ --..-g.-1--#+~. Staff has conducted several neighborhood meetings to date and presented several options to the Public Projects Review Group (PPRG). The PPRG meeting selected the option presented in this application. Since that meeting we were requested to explore one other option, yet, we believe the option presented is still the best option, the reasons to be discussed later in the application. The conceptual design presented today is a site analysis and massing study to be used for establishing a building envelope and set height restrictions versus an architectural presentation of actual building design. We are here at this time to get additional feedback and address the concerns of the board. We will then use the input received from this meeting to further develop actual site plans, proceed with architectural design, and then present a final submission at another P&Z meeting. 2 22.-AK=lfe-,322~t..1..1.--.Â·Â·-Â·. Â· â€ž - - _-_.1.t---j......,2222.Â¢:22:3.21 :D::.1-I./...Â· .. A - II. PROJECT SITE The Parks and Golf Maintenance Facility is located at 585 Cemetery Lane, at the intersection of State Highway 82 and Cemetery Lane. The site is a portion of Lot 1 of the Golf Course Subdivision (approximately 182 acres of land), of which approximately 8 acres are used for the maintenance support of the Golf Course and the Parks Department. The maintenance area is bordered on the north by a residential single family house (owned by Bill and Pat Sharp), on the east by Cemetery Lane, on the south by SH 82 and on the west by the 15th Tee of the Golf Course. Current structures on the site include an office building (520 sq. ft.), an irrigation pump house (375 sq. ft.), a small storage shed (450 sq. ft.), and a maintenance building (4160 sq.ft.). The topography of the area is fairly flat with elevations varying between 7896-7910. Other significant features of the property include 3 irrigation ponds and ditches meandering through the site, several berms surrounding the area which protect the facility from the major view corridors and a pedestrian/bicycle trail along the edge of the south/east corner of the property. The entire golf course parcel is within City Limits. A vicinity map is provided in Exhibit 1, as well as a site plan of existing and proposed development (Exhibits 4 & 6). The landscape features of the area are designed to visually hide the maintenance facilities. The vegetation includes numerous coniferous trees along Cemetery Lane interspersed with aspens, cottonwoo(is and a few flowering fruit trees. The vegetation along Cemetery Lane also includes irrigated turf, presenting a park-like exposure. The majority of the vegetation through out the site is on a raw water irrigation system (provided from the ditches). The various berms surrounding the area are seeded annually with wildflowers. On the golf course side of the area, there are again several mature spruce trees, with the exception of approximately 70 feet between the office building and the edge of a berm that exposes the storage shed and the maintenance yard (see Exhibit 5 for photos of the different exposures and general landscape). Utilities serving the facilities include water, gas, electric, phone, sanitation and cable. All utility companies have been contacted and 'will serv â‚¬ letters are being forwarded. Perpetual easements for both phone and sanitation exist through the golf course and were granted during the sale of the golf course in 1971(See PUD Utility Easement map Exhibit 3). 3 4, Y A drainage study and slope analysis(if required) will be included in the final submission application. If necessary, these items can be provided sooner, and will be forwarded to the Engineering Department A soils analysis will also be conducted for structural supports and load capability. Access to the Parks and Golf Offices and Maintenance Facility is provided by a variety of means. The main entrance is via Cemetery I.ane, approximately 50 feet from the highway intersection.Two bus stops service the area directly, one on Cemetery Lane at the entrance to the facility and the other stop is on Highway 82, approximately 50 feet from the intersection. Approximately, 16 parking spaces are provided for employees and 4-6 parking spaces are provided in front of the office for the general public. The trail also provides access to the property. A dirt service road exists on the west side of site which traverses the golf course to the Truscott housing. 4 m. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT A. BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS PLANNING REVIEWS: The golf course was purchased in 1971 for $3.7 million dollars.The original purchase included all the land now known as the Municipal Golf Course, Maroon Creek Park, Plumtree ballfield, Truscott Housing (Happy Hearth Inn/Red Roof Inn), Tot Lot Park, the Parks and Golf offices and maintenance area, and Bugsy Barnard Park. The course was originally developed at nine holes and was upgraded to 18 holes in 1979. The maintenance area was developed in 1976 to support golf and parks operations. The Golf and Parks Departments had been operating out of the Water Department but were approved in Feb of 1976 to be moved to the Cemetery Lane area by a motion of the Planning and Zoning Commission. There were many concerns by the neighbors at that time regarding the move. However, the alternatives available for Parks and Golf equipment maintenance and storage (City Shop, Water Department, Plum Tree, Rio Grande) were researched and found to be unsuitable for various reasons. The commission reviewed whether the proposed use was legal in the zone district and the building was found to be an acceptable use within the zoning and code. The major concerns were the visual impact on Cemetery Lane, employee parking, landscaping, size of the building, and equipment to be stored. These items were conditioned in the approval and met subsequentially. In 1985, a formal PUD plat was recorded for the entire golf course. The plat showed a future maintenance shop expansion in the area of the existing maintenance building. In 1986, the Parks and Golf Departments submitted an application for a 9,000 sq. ft. building expansion. The application was withdrawn after an initial review by P&Z and opposition by the neighbors. After the withdrawal of the application, the Planning Office conducted a comprehensive analysis of existing and future needs of Parks and Golf operations and potential site comparisons, and evaluated combined versus separated facilities. The results of the study recommended the existing site as the best option for some expansion. A substantial PUD amendment was applied for in 1990 for 2,160 sq. ft. of additional storage and maintenance space. The development plan was approved but, several issues were discussed during the public hearing. Many of the neighbors concerns again were the appropriateness of the site for 5 its existing uses. The additional 2,160 sq. ft. was questioned as to whether this was enough to provide adequate coverage for the amount of equipment that is stored in the area. In response to their concerns, it was discussed that the current expansion would not solve all of the storage needs but that an inventory would be done of the equipment and that the area would be cleaned up to prevent debris and unnecessary equipment from visually impacting the neighbors. Many people appeared at the meeting in support of the project as well, stating the need to improve and protect the City's assets and facilities. A motion was approved for the expansion of the maintenance structure conditioned upon the recommendations stated in the planning review memo and a city wide comprehensive study of equipment storage and maintenance needs. The board also stated it desired a review on the operations after a year to ensure all conditions had been met. This was completed on Nov. 7, 1991 by Rich Coulombe, the Golf Superintendent. As part of the City Shop Master Plan (1992), all City storage needs were evaluated to see what could be accommodated at the new City Shop. The study determined that the shop site could only house the Streets Department's needs and other areas would be required to meet the storage demands of the other departments (ie. Water, Parks, etc.). It was determined that the Parks Deparnnent needed approximately 7000 square feet of heated storage and 2000 square feet of covered storage. The study also recommended 1,000 sq. ft. of additional office space should be added to the facility. In the winter of 1993-1994, staff began the planning process to, again, look for ways to accommodate the storage needs identified in the City Shop Master Plan study. Glenn Rappaport was consulted to prepare an illustrative model of the existing area as well as a conceptual design of a possible storage building. The original design was a rectangular building oriented out towards the golf course (western exposure). The initial design was proposed as a 2 story building with a shed- like roof, with the center of the building broken up by a "covered bridge" like tunnel for service vehicles and equipment to access the service road of the golf course. This model was presented to the Blue Ribbon Committee(BRC) to see if funding of a new structure was feasible. The BRC approved the funding for an expansion of maintenance facilities. The model was also shown to the Golf Committee and received strong support for more storage space. In August of 1994, staff organized an open house inviting the neighbors to view the model of the proposed improvements to the maintenance area and the proposed upgrades to the golf course landscape (Golf Committee's Master Plan). The meeting was attended by about 10 neighbors. 6 _ .12==â€¢17 21- -Â·-' Initial concerns on the proposed new building centered primarily on the height of the central gable roof (24 feet). But overall, the majority of the neighbors did not object to the basic concept of expanded facilities. At that time, Bill Sharp requested the Parks and Golf Departments to put together some information on the overall organization of the two departments. The specific information requested included the responsibilities of Parks and Golf, a detailed equipment list (including space required, where stored, and use), an inventory of miscellaneous items ( seed, fertilizer, etc.), office space requirements, and job descriptions of employees. The requested information is attached as Exhibit 7. In October, a follow up meeting was scheduled and a revised drawing was presented which included a reduced height for the central tunnel. That meeting also distributed the information requested by Bill Sharp. Further discussion ensued with regards to building design and a few more ideas were requested to be explored. After the second neighborhood meeting several more designs were developed based on the input received from the that meeting. All designs were then presented to the Public Projects Review Group (total of 5 conceptual design options). All neighbors were also invited to the PPRG meeting. The PPRG selected the single story 'L' shaped building. The reason for their selection was that the single story design could be well hidden by the construction of a berm around the building, virtually making it invisible from neighbors, the highway and the golf course. The other reason the 'L' shaped building made sense is the utilization of the open space area to keep down congestion and to maximize efficiency and safety for both departments. Also, discussed at some length was the proposed new entrance. The concerns presented by the neighbors at that meeting were the impacts to the pond and the traffic issues by the realignment of the entrance. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed project will consist of constructing a new 9,000 square foot storage building and expanding the office space. The overall layout of the proposed storage building will be 'L' shaped, with a simple shed roof, with the pitch slanting towards the golf course. The building will be constructed on the interior of the existing berm by the 15th Tee, with the maximum height of the building not to exceed 18 feet It is possible the existing berm may be moved out 20-30 feet, with the Ladies tee being relocated as well. This will be further evaluated when an architectural design is completed but is agreeable to the Golf Director because the tee can be better designed. The excavated material for the building construction will be utilized for the continuation of the berm to the south to hide the view of the building. The berm will be landscaped with shrubs, trees and 7 ' wildflowers. The building will have simple garage bay doors for the interior of the yard. The length of the building (the portion facing the course) will be approximately 230 ft The east/ west axis of building (facing Red Butte) will be approximately 150 ft. in length. The depth of the building is proposed to be between 30-45 ft. There will be a gate for entrance and exit to the golf course service road. Heating for the building is proposed to be natural gas with about 7,000 square feet to be heated. The only other utilities proposed are a simple work sink and drainage system and maybe a single phone. The building will be designed to allow for adequate ventilation and noise control. The small storage shed, adjacent to the office, will be demolished as part of the new construction. The new building will house primarily the equipment detailed in Exhibit 8. The other aspect of the proposed project is the expansion of 1,000 sq. ft. of office space. The proposal is to expand the existing building to the north and connect it to the storage building. The extension will provide additional office space, a file storage area, a small conference room and a handicap accessible restroom. Current existing conditions have 3 Parks supervisors sharing an 85 sq. ft. office, 2-3 Golf Course employees in a 70 sq. ft. office, and 4 parks and golf employees sharing a 90 sq. ft. office. The map filing area is stored in the restroom, and the six filing cabinets are scattered in each of the existing offices. The original proposal showed a new entrance for the facility. This change is not proposed at this time due to the concerns of the neighbors and is not a critical issue to the building's design. This may be another phase for the project at a future time if found to be necessary and can be worked out If the new entrance is constructed then the old entrance will be reclaimed to a natural state. The reasons for the submitted design are many. The building style further defines and contains the maintenance area. The facilitieS can be well concealed by landscaping and presents a more aesthetic appearance to the golfers and the view from the highway. The berm is existing so the visual impact to the neighbors does not change. For security reasons, this design is preferable because of the gate for the service road and the building is far enough from the road so it can not be seen. Functionally, the building works because it allows easy access to the bays for deliveries and turning radius'. And the single story building is easier for accessing and storing equipment and supplies, whereas a two story building would require ramps or other means to access the upper level. There are no trees in this area, so therefore no vegetation is impacted by this design. 8 I . RESPONSE: No additional employees will be generated by this expansion. 6. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of this chapter. RESPONSE: A substantial PUD amendment is part of this application and a GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Services shall be required before final approval of this project. This is a review at Council. The applicant will also submit a revised plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section 7-1004 (D) (1) (a) (3) and (D) (2) (a). , 41 PUD AMENDMENT: This application amends the PUD but shall not be considered an < ~ insubstantial amendment. Section 7-903 outlines the following standards for PUD amendments: 1. General Requirements: a. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE: The 1973 Land Use Plan designates the site as Park/Golf Course. The purpose of the of the 'P' 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 the City Parks must be maintained to ensure they are used for their "intended use". As discussed in the conditional use review section, the golf course and City Parks must be maintained to ensure they are used for their "intended use", which means the City must have adequate mintenance and storage to insure proper maintenance of the golf course and park lands. b. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. RESPONSE: As was discussed in the Conditional Use review section, the applicant has carefully considered the input from the previously held neighborhood meetings and previous planning applications to design a facility which minimizes the impacts on the surrounding area. The visual 11 impacts will be minimal due to the landscaped berm c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect future development of the surrounding area. RESPONSE: The area is part of the original golf course purchase and is zoned Park. This expansion should not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area, including both public and private. It does ensure that the golf course, parks, trails, mall and nordic trails are maintained in the future. d. Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: A GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Services shall be required before final approval of this project. This is a review by 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 increase in the permitted density. Adequate services are provided to the site and slopes do not exceed 20%. 3. Land Uses: The land uses shall be those of the underlying zone district RESPONSE: A parks and golf maintenance facility is a conditional use in the Park zone district The application has already addressed conditional use review. 4. Dimensional Requirements: The dimensional requirements shall be those of the underlying zone district RESPONSE: The adoption of the Golf Course PUD plan did not specify area and bulk requirement for the site and building. The proposed maximum height is 18 feet The square footage of the building is proposed at 9,000 sq. ft. for the storage building and 1,000 additional sq. ft. for the office building. 12 , 4. Off-street Parking: RESPONSE: Off-street parking is currently provided on site and the proposed development will not cause an increased need for additional parking. 5. QI>en SPKE: The open space requirement shall be those of the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: There are no specific open space requirements for this area, however, the proposed facilities are designed within the current maintenance area and no additional open space is to be utilized by this development 6. Landscape Plan: 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 omamental plant species that are regarded as suitable for the Aspen area climate. RESPONSE: A landscape plan will be submitted as part of the Final Development plan. The proposed development includes extensive landscaping on the berms surrounding the new development, including trees, shrubs and wildflowers. 7. Architectural Site Plan: 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 Â©haracter of the City. RESPONSE: Full architectural drawings will be submitted as part of the Final Development Plan approval. 8. Lighting: A]llighting shall be arranged so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. RESPONSE: A lighting plan will be incorporated into the architectural drawings and submitted final development review. Lighting will be designed in compliance with this requirement 13 9. Clustering: Clustering of dwelling units is encouraged. RESPONSE: The proposed building location is designed so that the maintenance area is clearly defined and separated from the golf course. The new storage building is in close proximity to the other maintenance building. 10. Public Facilities: 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. RESPONSE: There are adequate public facilities and services to serve the development and 'will serve' letters have been requested from the major utilities for extension of services to the new structure. 11. Traffic and Pedestrian Circulation: RESPONSE: Access to the Parks and Golf Offices and Maintenance Facility is provided by a variety of means. The main entrance is via Cemetery Lane, approximately 50 feet from the highway intersection.Two bus stops service the area directly, one on Cemetery Lane at the entrance to the facility and the other stop is on Highway 82, approximately 50 feet from the intersection. Approximately, 16 parking spaces are provided for employees and 4-6 parking spaces are provided in front of the office for the general public. The trail also provides access to the property. A dirt service road exists on the west side of site which traverses the golf course to the Truscott housing.The optional new entrance to the facility off of Cemetery Lane would provide a safer entrance to the facility in that it would no longer cross the pedestrian/bicycle trail and would allow for safer vehicular access to the property away from the intersection. However, the new entrance does increase the impact on the pond and may not be as aesthetically pleasing. If the new entrance is constructed then the old entrance will be reclaimed to a natural state. 14 Exhibit 2 100# 41 t. THE ASPEN GOLF COURSE SUBDIVISION 0 9*62 34 k -0 0,0,4.,I. 1 INDEX OF SHEETS ..0. .l. wr. .1 1"{&. ./.,t.,1 .... '11, . , ~ ./.,1.0 ' Vii..(Ell. li 1.t,r, vIC'*ITÂ¥ /0 -OFE-' 2-#1-10â€¢ - . .0.. f t ,-UH- /:Al ..0...1, *-0.1 4.0 .,1.. ..C,/0 .1â„¢'. OWNER AND SUBDIVIDER K 2;2; 3; Z ~,t, 2 ,-C. ,0- tV~P0~1 -1 *., ... 3.le}â€¢I.,S 7- ..... .to 1 4 ,.... O/ '41, h.1 UNDâ‚¬ . ..< â€¢/0 .'.. C ' .-I C,U." 1-Â¢.T 4 pv. a.-, .,i.- m-no. . ~~ 1, .0. ,â€¢r M-'8â€¢0â€¢ 00â‚¬, ..'.â‚¬"r '...1 ... ./1.T. PUO PL.U, E.h~T-TC'* ..0 Pu~LIC ." ALL f.,4 -/fs '.0.. 4-0. 1.,8 . U O LAMOIC- h L. ... , PWO L.U~O~CÂ·-~ PL- LEGAL DESCRIPTION C..0.4,0 ~*-i-_ 3 4.- u fruL-.1 -ci-_lii . 3., -C., Â· N -..b 5. ' - -Câ€¢Ke/ ..1.1 SrilE . COI C RA DO 1 1,1 Â£ I .T.1 (.ENT *â€¢5 â€¢Â·.iNGâ€¢L~04~0 .{,Q.t .1[ i,-12.. ., wfu...,tH 6, 80'*Am - THE ci- oF â€¢sâ€¢~â€¢, a.0 hhihk.'L!_lu_.02.,6- I .,.. I.4 I .... -.-CÂ»â€¢O liT' ,â€¢..1 y .Â·-I ..AÂ»Â·â€¢6 --' ..c- .../...,0 1-I ..u-i ............ i......t../0 i U.Â· Â· Girl C..... c,,7 0' ...Â¢. e~. i '' Â©u C., 1 C.,1.- -8,2Â«25___ 'IT/Â¢5' WT .... ..0 OFFICIAL .(AL .5~.1 %. / ./Â·- 2. f.-T' 1.'ll t... /6/, â€¢ell ....r' .......Ct , 44.ye-2=.4Â·=--- , I. C -L. -7 - ~f â‚¬7 AL.~.* .Â»(0 ~ENCI i f 06'Al . ./.7 Ill G. 'llÂ¥ A-/.0 1./. '..NCI .-c Â·,0./. ./0. ... ,-1 ./ litcl *.r-,â€¢ I.Â·c, Ii'.r./ i. . -I.,c' ic,â€¢ric. I h.. C - U. r M 6.' v. t~*r n,p' \ 1/ : . CLOIC-0- + -W#*1*..0 ...T , r....<.c yi - r*,7 â€¢Aclurâ€¢o ... -k 'l l .....c /0 ... I....1 -Â· I- I ...... 0/ I. 9... ... ...... il=- ...Al I - m- I Ya-:..Jddijbatbsi- Â·. 0/I - Wh' .... I ./ 'll' ' . '.NC. 'CUT" :4& 92%9':r...fi ~ 1,Â·C e Nâ€¢"" - 14/ M N&'"4 r "3 6. 4" 4 Il '. -1 '3 1 4, -9*,- 2."DIÂ¥'D~ON A- -E. r- r. .1 , Tr,ENCE *<Â»41 01~F.-Eb'I '~0 -Â¥Â· f C -4/ XÂ»J~W -I. I./.T - le/Â·r , .rpm>- . 1,1 t ./T . +0 r. El --1 /04 - 9466\n 4 </ ise - *r /%%. i-I ~-,L - I Cu,v,2 ~re '~Â·e ~Eâ€¢ T - ) . -â€¢ cr ilo râ€¢aâ€¢ . r~â€¢.~ â€¢â€¢â€¢au. *I -- *r'. ...Â·.cl ..0~râ€¢. ae- 5â€¢ IMI Uu lar , '.Â·C.C. ,>GA,rr. I.......7 #..... 1 -/-4/ ,#.Â·Â¥M X*4- N- 'â€¢0 1~67 h 5 ,-*.. 0-a Â·. Â»~17- --. . I ..r I :*cul I ./* 01%1 + NET 4 ....2/ ..........Â· lo' I.I.......... r ; /1-'ChICe. .~Câ€¢Irâ€¢â€¢ 1-Â»M. .-'1 ,U- #. = TM. PQ,Nr 0. 0~-N-,Ne.. C,-7Ai--6 -,4~,Ag.. ~0~, C. ...Â» SURVEYOR' S CERTIFICATE =--â€ž 2.'442 ZAn-k~11:&*:5:=.44:Gzr" 'L:'2.-7,441~ 22&~fitit-,Aff;i t'4'203Â·2G~747~%0; .=Ar=Ca Il 11_ ....,v. 0. I.,1 .....Irr w.lâ€¢ -O/ ......4 ./. ... ' 76 c=e*el=,148-44- G.. ji \\Â» 1 coun~~re --CM,0 u~,~0 -,-V~Â¥O."417 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL 3Â»f-t // / Â«la C U),LL' 0,.Li / V\\---/// /// ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPHOVIA -;::Litill.-11':C~/ '/'-' Ca-ZI -Cow,>Cll ,/ -I.... ./.*.... m ... C'TÂ¥ V ..... ... IJ'll.. .-/ 8 * ... / 0, Â£*1~,=.4-_4 -14-1___ 4- 6 . Ab==A6~- -- *Oâ€¢% .,7. r 'Ir. 4-1.- 3 EE C}Tr ENGINGâ‚¬11' S APPIOVALL , 7.... /Â¥IA- 04~4.Ar T= , .... 0. A , 17* ..Â» ) ~-, CLERK a RECOrâ‚¬MR'S CERTIFICATE ! 1 4,%, ./-49*.101,455*f=â‚¬9-223 v ..L7*-.L -5.-0 --â€ž r-.i iÂ·â€¢.c.0 .â€¢~ A.~T ~,*0- __,qi v 40909 >- K- 5<420'EM-*- tur.,3.TLL--/=*- <,- atz--== 1 â€¢ - 910 - 61 EXill- D -- I.,CSÂ·~ f 1 ., 21. 1 1 09:11 ' I I .. ./ <.1 . 1622.-' 91 / , --' 14Â¢Ck_ -- 1 \ 01.O--7â„¢-- 60,~Â» /FO#/F-*# 1 1 ..A /' 11â€¢ .... e,T /1.-Iâ€¢, \ ....bwb eiwilj --.0 t... \ â€žÂ«5~ .,S~4~- 1 11'~~ , e PAâ€¢â€¢â€¢-a /, 2... 1 iar-.1 .AFIE.1 Ank- . -.1, Cf â‚¬7Â· ~,N S; 1,61: i -- . 14 4, A f>A. /Iwift E 'Ly ' 3/ lia 220- A L \\ 6-1 / a / A 1 - IX,7 - --- , /,% A \,1,01~1 /6, i -\ . // Aâ€ž.Aâ€ž. .,1 -i=IN Xm= 4 -8 *ay- \ :1 - , \ , Al.-1 1 9,19 i (11 -4. i '-' \ 1. 1 10 k ..... .. - I L 1 4.m, - (% 1 - - Lf* 9:qmilfi 7/i 15 ...Â·k & . D.rn.. .... -IlL , \ 3 ' "VÂ° I .- ::IIiÂ» - l \\ 2 ttÂ·_. -4 3#'-7- f- /39*-& 31 i,~374F -~1 Ve- ... '4, / / / L -4- 1-4 - 1 - . \U 1 'e -'30.1.12; ----- '.0 r=. f - ./Wl:' -- 1 .. ..+I ~ ./-.... I. / ,â€¢â€¢./.-,. U .4 ....,r VW' - \ 7... A- i~wâ€¢- Z - , 4..MI - - -1 -U -- > _ -== 4-404552Â«--Re"3. c - -,#- --&-/1% , 4. 1 6-% 15&5 - -Â·- , -- .1 ----./.-j..~: .S 1 / I: ./. -- W J 1 CITY OF ASPEN CHARLES CUNNIFFE & ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS 1 PARKS & GOLF i MAINTENANCE BUILDING -------- AGPEN, COLORADO PO 80X 3534 ASPEN COLORADO BI6IZ TELEPHONE 303/925-5590 1 8 1.M 06-N., h-0 ...9 0. .2- 97 3-yqjqx3 I ./ A ... i F]- . .41 .4 - 1 / Â·1"'..LirÂ»13- 4/ I ... -f'*4:'Di (HA i /\J Te{\3 4 AJOEL 4 62-iD PROPÂ¢FLE D 2) Lt t LD i /\0 (b 0 i I ez. IN-E (De \ O Â£ Cl /- 8 E A Ad ' 1 1 E! ' k ::.jus:.-s-**149.- .ilif'kÂ·~ 1 . 7 ' 4/4 ' .1 - 1 I , . 0 - .'.f. 1. 1 . . r . :,1, AE-1 , r * . 1'. 1 1 1. 1 .-/8/ -- 1 -- . - 4 . / I. 1 :"30 44=238- -- '01 .r<3361//041#4fpri.*44.*1'. h Â· ---~4.Â»:/9,94=4k:l'/*I'v-. . t~ . Of'TUE.V,-".'~,4, 3 #4''t :~ 1 -- . Â¥ Â» 11> . ":21Â£11,5,1.4.*6~.~5:6&45~~~7 ':': ~~' 4 - , 1-1 . ....1 - A.*4'Wht ' 2 :91' r*327-1~~ 3 -- ,--/4/4 4 " 1, 1, I Etre'Acri:*10115 r.u:=.-v *113;- .: 02 A.f ET- i-ng-xf L\/1-N e- LAk,1 60 22 4 LAN Â£ EX PDOU 26 tâ‚¬ A PO 5Ot 2 6- - 0.1 4 i 1 f I 14Â¢1:1.1.4.4.1. ~ , 41 z : Â£ 41*424 tÂ«Q-Â·Â· J..2 :diA.-aa.14.*' 3'*4:......Â·R..4 '~.-- a ~-' ~'-~L''y:r. . .f _ -: U ..4.MÂ«.445.li? . 13";?42%~Â·.Al.*114<:7...34...L;..i. 4. I -1...i.; 1 .: -9*122$*$011&**it., .........At';4<*1#9Â£Â£1~ I. ./ . 1 I . 4" "â‚¬' i . . .2 '|Â· ~*|4,:&~Q#i.~4*: â‚¬ %4.2,Â·Â·a~ Â·1 Â· .r, 13;3~34........ i 1: ff,9.. TA- AL 1 N 61 A- 2,â‚¬~A ENTRANCE 122-0 M Lk[ A l NT EN)A 14) LED C- EAR (3-Tle,2-y kA /0 9 V 6 4 / C L 6-'~b~j 1 1 I . , - 1 1~ -Â·Â·â€¢,*47~ ' . .... *. 1 t ,Â¥tb. tfi-4$44*&41,1.14 4â€¢WED f-NÂ·Â·f*Â·;Â·ijrj~Â· .ri:. . Â· Â·Â·'ok--I'Â·~ '4 I -1 #0 -.fiA .... â‚¬4 . .' 6 '4:.,,Â· Â·- ,Â·..:Â·Â·Â·â€¢kÂ·Â·i,, :.Â·Â·--44'7 ' -4,0. ,-09* p C; ..: . ' "Â· Â·' Â«,1 , j '1 1 ..1/ .:bÂ¢, '. ~ 4'L rÂ· - - r t~ . F /3 -7 PU /51 p ;10 U. 6 E ~FORB* ROW 4 24, awl.04 y CO L- Spipoou.Ae + 0 FL- 1-= 1 CE> t> I I 1 Ill ! "44*94,Â©11#14*- â€¢4 9 7 -'.ye-Â» 49...4 4, . 1 4 . 4 R ./ ' 'I 8 *#% i I ' 1 .Ly *4Â· 4 -L- - - 9---- - <* Â· *42 CH/B/~4/1///f/ALit ,~+ t#---/"/I'.4.'&Â·It. ---*%*bi di.f=Akev-A/4,0#50/y<.j. . i ~ 'Â· 'Â·' - 7Â·3.-jâ‚¬:'.2~.ati 4â€¢%.4:Â·f i. -' - 0//11/#%49% E * 1 .ki,24:9.**WA ... -231Â· ~4 'i .b ,.,1..- ., fil<,Â·*~%44,Â·'* " ," . ''140'4*.~ . . .24/94 , - Â·â€¢ â€¢Â· Â· 'Â«4 :Â· Â·lf:Ev: 4 V /*. .'hf;"A*3,1.. . . 01Â·: 1 Â·.Â· Â·Â·1 p.t- *W.*1 * - 09.16:...D .Â·: '7.Â·*0;L>: eÂ·- 'A 606/= COU/256 Coolf(-80 ag ax pos- 04665 Ek PO Â»61- 26 j i ! 0 - ' . 2. ,Â·4, * ./4 , 7 - Ir 4 r 'it . 0 - . Im:Â£ I -I./..... . ./ , Â·'4, IÂ·* #*04 4 . / 34/*1+I :Il.--' 'A... 9 P. >11/Â·Il,al,-2/ ..... .. 5 4, "~â‚¬ w'.h2412 7<Â· ~ ... I : 112 I (4 0 L p CO u 2_ C-3 E 0 6 Llc COU /292 r--1 2 K (30 5 LA 1~ C 1 C ackÂ»13 Ex pO 5 U-/2-E . 0,80 - MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Director RE: City of Aspen Parks and Golf Maintenance Facility Expansion - Conceptual PUD Review DATE: May 2, 1995 SUMMARY: The Parks and Golf Departments have proposed an expansion to the existing maintenance/storage facility and an expansion to their offices. The property is zoned Park with a PUD overlay. Because of the extensive nature of the proposal this is a substantial amendment to the existing PUD development plan. Please refer to the attached application for further review, Exhibit A. APPLICANT: City of Aspen Parks Department LOCATION: 585 Cemetery Lane, eastern edge of the Aspen Golf course at the intersection of Cemetery lane and Highway 82. ZONING: Park with PUD (Planned Unit Development) overlay APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicants request to expand the current maintenance/storage facility and expand the office space. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments, Exhibit B. In addition, staff has received written input from interested citizens, which is also attached as Exhibit B. PROCESS: PUD review is either substantial or insubstantial. Although a substantial amendment to an existing PUD development plan is typically a two step review process, the applicants have requested a four step review because of the significant change to the existing conditions. P&Z then Council will review the proposal at a conceptual level (steps 1 & 2). Then the P&Z and Council will review a final development proposal (steps 3 & 4). Public hearings occur at steps two & three. GMQS Exemption review is required for the expansion of an essential public facility. This review will occur at steps three and four. Conditional use review is required for a park maintenance building in the Park zone district. This is a P&Z public hearing at step three. STAFF COMMENTS: A. Project Description - The Department is proposing to construct an additional 9,000 square feet of storage space at the maintenance facility site to house approximately 115 pieces of equipment and other miscellaneous items. In addition, the development plan proposes approximately 1,000 square feet of additional office space. The design of the new maintenance building is "L" shaped with a shed roof and will be constructed on the interior of the berm by the 15th Tee. The maximum height of the building will not exceed 18 feet. The berm may be moved 20-30 ft. and the Ladies Tee relocated resulting in a better design of the Tee. The relocated berm will be revegetated. According to the application, the building will have simple garage bay doors on the interior of the yard. The portion of the building facing the golf course will be approximately 230 ft long. The east/west axis of the building, facing Red Butte, Will be approximately 150 ft. in length. The depth of the building is proposed to be 30-45 ft. A gate will be located at the entrance to the golf course at the service road. The small storage shed next to the office Will be demolished as part Of this redevelopment. The office proposal will expand the existing office to the north connecting with the new storage building. The expansion will provide additional office space, file storage, a small conference room and ADA bathroom. Existing conditions find 3 supervisors sharing 85 sq. ft., 2-3 golf employees in 70 sq. ft., and 4 other employees sharing 90 sq. ft. The map filing area is in the bathroom as well as employee amenities such as a refrigerator, coffee machine etc. Filing cabinets are scattered throughout the office. The Department has considered several design iterations during the development of this proposal over the last two years. The proposal that has been submitted for review is the design that works best for the Department for several reasons: * it further defines and contains the maintenance area; * it can be will concealed by landscaping; * it presents a more aesthetic appearance to the golfers and the Highway; * it uses the existing berm; * it provides better security with a gate at the service road and is setback from Cemetery Lane; * it provides easy access to the bays for deliveries and turning radius'; 2 * the one story design enables easy access to stored equipment and supplies; and * no removal of existing vegetation is required for redevelopment. The Parks Department will have for review at the meeting other design proposals that were considered. A new entrance was proposed further down Cemetery Lane to eliminate the crossing of the bike path and the dangerously close proximity to the Hgh. 82/Cemetery Lane intersection. The proposal has been withdrawn as a priority due to neighbors concerns. However, the Engineering Department has suggested that the new entrance be relocated further down Cemetery Lane (beyond the Parks proposed entrance) for safety reasons. Staff believes that this is a threshold issue that should be discussed at this conceptual review. Employee housing is not proposed on site as the Department believes that no new employees will be added with the expansion. Staff also believes that this is a threshold issue to be considered at conceptual review. B. Site Description - The specific location of the Parks and Golf facilities is approximately 8 acres of the 182 acres of the Golf Course Subdivision. Currently, a 4,160 sq. ft. maintenance/storage building, a 520 sq. ft. office building, a 375 sq. ft. pump house, and a 450 sq. ft. storage shed are all located on the site. The office/maintenance area is bordered on the north by a single family residence, Cemetery Lane and a bike/pedestrian trail to the east, Highway 82 and a bike/pedestrian trail to the south, and the municipal golf course to the west. Two RFTA bus stops are within close proximity of the area, one on Cemetery Lane and the other on Highway 82. The entrance to the facility is off of Cemetery Lane approximately 50 feet from the Hgh. 82 and Cemetery Lane intersection. Approximately 16 parking spaces are provided for employees and 4-6 spaces for the general public. Three irrigation ponds and ditches are on site, several berms surround the property, and bike trails border the site on Hgh. 82 and Cemetery Lane. Thick vegetation buffers the site from Cemetery Lane and the berms are landscaped. C. Background - The golf course was purchased in 1971. The purchase included the golf course, Plumtree ballfield, Happy Hearth Inn/Red Roof Inn (now Truscott Housing), Tot Lot Park, Maroon Creek 3 Park, Bugsy Barnard Park and the Parks and Golf offices and maintenances area. The maintenance and office facilities have occurred on the site since 1976 when the operations moved to the site from the Water Plant. In 1985 a formal PUD plat was recorded. In 1986, the Parks Department proposed a 9,000 sq. ft. addition to the maintenance facility but withdrew the application due to opposition by the neighbors and a critical P&Z review. Direction was provided to the Department to accurately access the physical plant needs and study other potential sites. The results of the study indicated that the existing site is the best solution. A detailed list of employees and equipment used by the Department is included as Exhibit 7 in the attached application. In addition, a list of the Department's recreational responsibilities is attached, Exhibit C. In 1990, a substantial PUD review and approval was granted for additional storage space of 2,160 sq. ft. That addition provides storage for equipment repair/maintenance, agricultural and chemical storage, a wood shop and dry storage area/employee locker room. The City Shop Master Plan that was conducted in 1992 evaluated all the storage needs of the municipality. The study was conducted to primarily assess the ability of the expanded city shop to meet storage/maintenance needs of the City. The study indicated that only Streets Department requirements could be accommodated at the new shop. The study also demonstrated that the Parks Department needed approximately 7,000 sq. ft. of heated storage and 2,000 sq. ft. of covered storage. In addition, 1,000 sq. ft. of additional office space was required. The Parks Department has held several neighborhood meetings to review expansion proposals. The Department has presented the proposal to the City's Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) to request funding for the proposal. The BRC approved the funding. The Golf Committee has also reviewed and supports the expansion proposal. ---0------ -------- PUD REVIEW: I. Pursuant to Section 24-7-903.B.1, the General Requirements for PUD plan review are as follows: 1. (a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. RESPONSE: The Philosophy statement of the Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan states that "our community' s active and passive recreational needs must be constantly reassessed and 4 addressed in order to maintain one of the most valued features of the Aspen area." The recently adopted Parks, Recreation and Open space master plan addresses the maintenance facility need in the implementation section of the Plan: "The City of Aspen needs an indoor facility to store and repair park maintenance equipment and machinery. The maintenance facility should consist of a building adequate for maintaining tucks and machinery, storage space, indoor parking 1, space, restrooms and an office space. The proposed expansion of the Parks maintenance facility and office space is consistent with the need of the program as identified in the Master Plan and will enhance the Department's ability to "maintain one of the most valued features of the Aspen area. " (b) The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. RESPONSE: Visual impacts of the expansion are intended to be minimal. The applicants will utilize existing berms to shield the new buildings and will upgrade the surrounding landscape to reduce visual impact. The Parks Department has designed an expansion that has evolved through neighborhood input and comments received at the PPRG meeting (only one PPRG member was present but surrounding residents were also present). As noted above, the applicants have several renditions of the proposed expansion. Those alternatives will be presented at the meeting. The use of the 8 acres will not change with the expansion. In addition, the expansion Will house existing equipment and personnel. (C) The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. RESPONSE: The proposed expansion is totally within the land area that is currently used by the Parks and Golf Department. The ability to store equipment inside will enhance the appearance of the equipment yard. The only adjacent residence is a single family home to the south and is buffered from the yard by landscaped berms. A significant portion of the berms have been landscaped by that neighbor. (d) Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: A GMQS Exemption review for an essential public facility shall be reviewed by the Commission and Council at final review, 5 steps 3 & 4. A GMQS Exemption does not negate employee mitigation requirements. However, an applicant may request a waiver which Council could grant. Although, the Housing Office recommends a mitigation for the 1,000 square foot office expansion, the applicant has not proposed employee mitigation stating that the office expansion is to house current employees that are located in cramped office space. II. Section 24-7-903.B.2 addresses density standards for PUD review. a. General. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: The density will not be increased with the proposed expansion. III. Section 24-7-903.B.3 states that land uses shall be those of the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: A parks and golf maintenance facility is a conditional use in the Park zone district. Conditional use review will be conducted by the P&Z at step 3 of the application. However, if the P&Z expresses a strong dissatisfaction to the expanded use or the current use of this location, it is a conceptual issue that should be discussed at this meeting before final review. IV. Section 24-7-903.B.4 addresses dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirement shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in the following: minimum distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor area ratio, and minimum percent open space. RESPONSE: The adopted Golf Course PUD plan did not specify bulk and area requirements for the site. The proposed maximum height of the building is 18 feet and the additional storage area is 9,000 sq. ft. and 1,000 sq. ft. for the office. The total floor area on the 8 acre site is 15,130 sq. ft. with a floor area ratio of .04. The existing storage building is setback from Cemetery Lane by approximately 80 feet. The new building will be approximately 250 feet from Cemetery Lane. From the property of the adjacent residence the existing building is setback approximately 90 feet and the end of the new building will be approximately 150 feet away from the neighbors property line. 6 The adjacent neighborhood is zoned R-15. The required front yard setback is 25 feet and the side yard setback is 10 feet (there is no open space requirement in the R-15). The Parks maintenance and office use well exceeds the dimensional requirements of the adjacent R-15 zone district. V. Section 24-7-903.B.5 addresses the amount of parking provided on the site. Parking may be varied through the PUD review process taking into consideration the type of use, parking needs, time periods of use, availability of public transit and other transportation facilities and the proximity of the development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities. RESPONSE: There are 16 parking spaces for employees and 4-6 spaces for the general public. The application states that the proposed development will not require additional parking. The expansion is not intended to increase the number of employees but to provide for existing equipment and better offices for existing personnel. The site is located adjacent to two RFTA bus routes. One of the primary bike/pedestrian routes in the City passes through the property. The City provides free RFTA bus passes for employees. The Engineering Department accurately pointed out that a employee bike fleet and sufficient bike storage area is not provided or discussed in the application/site plans. VI. Section 24-7-903.B.6 states that open space shall comply with the underlying zoning or may be varied by the PUD review. Response: There is not a specific open space requirement in the Park zone. All proposed development will occur in existing maintenance yard and outdoor storage area. No existing open space will be disturbed as part of this redevelopment. THRESHOLD ISSUES - There are several issues that staff believes should be discussed at this conceptual level before the proposal continues to Council. 1. As part of the design process, the Parks Department and their architect, Glenn Rappaport, prepared several design alternatives. These alternatives were discussed at neighborhood meetings and the PPRG meeting. The submitted application provides, in the Department's opinion, the best design for their purposes. However, the Commission may elect to review the other proposals. In addition, the adjacent neighbor, Bill Sharp, has included an alternative in his attached letter, Referral Comments Exhibit B. 7 2. Originally, the applicants proposed to relocate the entrance to the Departments facilities. The relocated entrance was further down Cemetery Lane. There was substantial neighborhood opposition to moving the entrance closer to the adjacent residence. The applicants would like to restudy the relocated entrance. Staff is interested whether the P&Z finds enough merit in the relocated entrance to continue the discussion at this point. 3. A GMQS Exemption for essential public facilities does not negate the requirement to provide employee housing. The applicants are not proposing housing mitigation with the additional office square footage. Although a GMQS Exemption will be reviewed at steps 3 & 4, staff would like to have an initial discussion with the applicant in order to provide ample time and opportunity for the applicant to explore housing if necessary. 4. A conditional use review is required for a park maintenance facility in the Park zone district. The conditional use review will occur at step 3. If the P&Z is inclined to raise a red flag with regard to this use in this location and the proposed expansion this conceptual review is the appropriate time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends conceptual PUD approval for the Parks Department maintenance and office expansion with the following conditions: 1. A final architectural plan with elevations of all proposed buildings including identification of building materials shall be included in the submitted final PUD application. 2. A detailed lighting plan and landscape plan shall be included in the final PUD application. 3. A housing mitigation plan shall be provided to mitigate 1.8 employees in the submitted final PUD application. 4. A storm drainage plan shall be included in the submitted final PUD application. 5. A conceptual sidewalk/curb/gutter and paving plan shall be developed with the Engineering Department and submitted for review during final PUD review. 6. A revised site plan shall be included in the final PUD application and shall include: a. trash/recycle area and bike storage/racks; b. on-site parking spaces; and c. relocated 15th Tee and berm near the Tee. 8 7. Oil and sand separators shall be installed where vehicles are serviced and stored. All chemical/fertilizer storage must be designed to prevent leakage into the public sewer system. 8. The four inch sewer service line shall be replaced. 9. The project shall install an approved automatic sprinkler system. 10. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend to Council conceptual PUD approval of the Parks and Golf maintenance and office expansion with the conditions outlined in Planning Office memo date May 2, 1995." EXHIBITS A. Application B. Referral Comments C. Department Recreational Responsibilities 9 0. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Amy Margerum, City Manager 42-- 7.*4..,i THRU: Stan Clauson, Community Development Director(~/ FROM: Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner DATE: June 12, 1995 RE: City of Aspen Parks and Golf Maintenance Facility Expansion - Conceptual PUD Review - Resolution # SUMMARY: The Parks and Golf Departments have proposed an expansion to the existing maintenance/storage facility and an expansion to their offices. The property is zoned Park with a PUD overlay. Because of the extensive nature of the proposal this is a substantial amendment to the existing PUD development plan. Please refer to the attached application for further review, Exhibit A. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to Council approval of the conceptual PUD review for the expansion. APPLICANT: City of Aspen Parks Department LOCATION: 585 Cemetery Lane, eastern edge of the Aspen Golf course at the intersection of Cemetery lane and Highway 82. ZONING: Park with PUD (Planned Unit Development) overlay APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicants request to expand the current maintenance/storage facility and expand the office space. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Please see attached referral comments, Exhibit B. In addition, staff has received written input from interested citizens, which is also attached as Exhibit B. PROCESS: PUD review is either substantial or insubstantial. Although a substantial amendment to an existing PUD development plan is typically a two step review process, the applicants have requested a four step review because of the significant change to the existing conditions. P&Z then Council will review the proposal at a conceptual level (steps 1 & 2). Then the P&Z and Council will review a final development proposal (steps 3 & 4). Public hearings occur at steps two & three. 1 GMQS Exemption review is required for the expansion of an essential public facility. This review will occur at steps three and four. Conditional use review is required for a park maintenance building in the Park zone district. This is a P&Z public hearing at step three. ---0 ---- STAFF COMMENTS: A. Project Description - The Department is proposing to construct an additional 9,000 square feet of storage space at the maintenance facility site to house approximately 115 pieces of equipment and other miscellaneous items. In addition, the development plan proposes approximately 1,000 square feet of additional office space. The design of the new maintenance building is "L" shaped with a shed roof and will be constructed on the interior of the berm by the 15th Tee. The maximum height of the building will not exceed 18 feet. The berm may be moved 20-30 ft. and the Ladies Tee relocated resulting in a better design of the Tee. The relocated berm will be revegetated. According to the application, the building will have simple garage bay doors on the interior of the yard. The portion of the building facing the golf course will be approximately 230 ft long. The east/west axis of the building, facing Red Butte, Will be approximately 150 ft. in length. The depth of the building is proposed to be 30-45 ft. A gate will be located at the entrance to the golf course at the service road. The small storage shed next to the office Will be demolished as part of this redevelopment. The office proposal will expand the existing office to the north connecting with the new storage building. The expansion will provide additional office space, file storage, a small conference room and ADA bathroom. Existing conditions find 3 supervisors sharing 85 sq. ft., 2-3 golf employees in 70 sq. ft., and 4 other employees sharing 90 sq. ft. The map filing area is in the bathroom as well as employee amenities such as a refrigerator, coffee machine etc. Filing cabinets are scattered throughout the office. The Department has considered several design iterations during the development of this proposal over the last two years. Please see attached alternatives, Exhibit D. The proposal that has been submitted for review is the design that works best for the Department for several reasons: 2 * it further defines and contains the maintenance area; * it can be will concealed by landscaping; * it presents a more aesthetic appearance to the golfers and the Highway; * it uses the existing berm; * it provides better security with a gate at the service road and is setback from Cemetery Lane; * it provides easy access to the bays for deliveries and turning radius'; * the one story design enables easy access to stored equipment and supplies; and * no removal of existing vegetation is required for redevelopment. The Parks Department will review other design proposals at the meeting is requested by Council. A new entrance was proposed further down Cemetery Lane to eliminate the crossing of the bike path and the dangerously close proximity to the Hgh. 82/Cemetery Lane intersection. The proposal has been withdrawn as a priority due to neighbors concerns. However, the Engineering Department has suggested that the new entrance be relocated further down Cemetery Lane (beyond the Parks proposed entrance) for safety reasons. Employee housing is not proposed on site as the Department believes that no new employees will be added with the expansion. Staff also believes that this is a threshold issue to be considered at conceptual review. B. Site Description - The specific location of the Parks and Golf facilities is approximately 8 acres of the 182 acres of the Golf Course Subdivision. Currently, a 4,160 sq. ft. maintenance/storage building, a 520 sq. ft. office building, a 375 sq. ft. pump house, and a 450 sq. ft. storage shed are all located on the site. The office/maintenance area is bordered on the north by a single family residence, Cemetery Lane and a bike/pedestrian trail to the east, Highway 82 and a bike/pedestrian trail to the south, and the municipal golf course to the west. Two RFTA bus stops are within close proximity of the area, one on Cemetery Lane and the other on Highway 82. The entrance to the facility is off of Cemetery Lane approximately 50 feet from the Hgh. 82 and Cemetery Lane intersection. Approximately 16 parking spaces are provided for employees and 4-6 spaces for the general public. Three irrigation ponds and ditches are on site, several berms surround the property, and bike trails border the site on Hgh. 82 3 and Cemetery Lane. Thick vegetation buffers the site from Cemetery Lane and the berms are landscaped. C. Background - The golf course was purchased in 1971. The purchase included the golf course, Plumtree ballfield, Happy Hearth Inn/Red Roof Inn (now Truscott Housing), Tot Lot Park, Maroon Creek Park, Bugsy Barnard Park and the Parks and Golf offices and maintenances area. The maintenance and office facilities have occurred on the site since 1976 when the operations moved to the site from the Water Plant. In 1985 a formal PUD plat was recorded. In 1986, the Parks Department proposed a 9,000 sq. ft. addition to the maintenance facility but withdrew the application due to opposition by the neighbors and a critical P&Z review. Direction was provided to the Department to accurately access the physical plant needs and study other potential sites. The results of the study indicated that the existing site is the best solution. A detailed list of employees and equipment used by the Department is included as Exhibit 7 in the attached application. In addition, a list of the Department's recreational responsibilities is attached, Exhibit C. In 1990, a substantial PUD review and approval was granted for additional storage space of 2,160 sq. ft. That addition provides storage for equipment repair/maintenance, agricultural and chemical storage, a wood shop and dry storage area/employee locker room. The City Shop Master Plan that was conducted in 1992 evaluated all the storage needs of the municipality. The study was conducted to primarily assess the ability of the expanded city shop to meet storage/maintenance needs of the City. The study indicated that only Streets Department requirements could be accommodated at the new shop. The study also demonstrated that the Parks Department needed approximately 7,000 sq. ft. of heated storage and 2,000 sq. ft. of covered storage. In addition, 1,000 sq. ft. of additional office space was required. The Parks Department has held several neighborhood meetings to review expansion proposals. The Department has presented the proposal to the City's Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC) to request funding for the proposal. The BRC approved the funding. The Golf Committee has also reviewed and supports the expansion proposal. ---------- PUD REVIEW: 4 I. Pursuant to Section 24-7-903.8.1, the General Requirements for PUD plan review are as follows: 1. (a) The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. RESPONSE: The Philosophy statement of the Open Space/Recreation and Environment Action Plan states that "our community' s active and passive recreational needs must be constantly reassessed and addressed in order to maintain one of the most valued features of the Aspen area." The recently adopted Parks, Recreation and Open space master plan addresses the maintenance facili4y need in the implementation section of the Plan: "The City of ~ Aspen needs an indoor facility to store and repair park maintenan* equipment and machinery. The maintenance facility should consist of a building adequate for maintaining tucks and machinery, storage space, indoor parking space, restrooms and an office space." The proposed expansion of the Parks maintenance facility and office space is consistent with the need of the program as identified in the Master Plan and will enhance the Department's ability to "maintain one of the most valued features of the Aspen area." (b) The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the area. RESPONSE: Visual impacts of the expansion are intended to be minimal. The applicants will utilize existing berms to shield the new buildings and will upgrade the surrounding landscape to reduce visual impact. The Parks Department has designed an expansion that has evolved through neighborhood input and comments received at the PPRG meeting (only one PPRG member was present but surrounding residents were also present). As noted above, the applicants have several renditions of the proposed expansion. Those alternatives will be presented at the meeting. The use of the 8 acres will not change with the expansion. In addition, the expansion Will house existing equipment and personnel. (C) The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of surrounding areas. RESPONSE: The proposed expansion is totally within the land area that is currently used by the Parks and Golf Department. The ability to store equipment inside will enhance the appearance of the equipment yard. The only adjacent residence is a single family home to the south and is buffered from the yard by landscaped 5 berms. A significant portion of the berms have been landscaped by that neighbor. (d) Final approval shall only be granted to the development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained by the applicant. RESPONSE: A GMQS Exemption review for an essential public facility shall be reviewed by the Commission and Council at final review, steps 3 & 4. A GMQS Exemption does not negate employee mitigation requirements. However, an applicant may request a waiver which Council could grant. Although, the Housing Office recommends a mitigation for the 1,000 square foot office expansion, the applicant has not proposed employee mitigation stating that the office expansion is to house current employees that are located in cramped office space. II. Section 24-7-903.B.2 addresses density standards for PUD review. a. General. The maximum density shall be no greater than that permitted in the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: The density will not be increased with the proposed expansion. III. Section 24-7-903.B.3 states that land uses shall be those of the underlying zone district. RESPONSE: A parks and golf maintenance facility is a conditional use in the Park zone district. Conditional use review will be conducted by the P&Z at step 3 of the application. However, if the P&Z expresses a strong dissatisfaction to the expanded use or the current use of this location, it is a conceptual issue that should be discussed at this meeting before final review. IV. Section 24-7-903.B.4 addresses dimensional requirements. The dimensional requirement shall be those of the underlying zone district, provided that variations may be permitted in the following: minimum distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor area ratio, and minimum percent open space. RESPONSE: The adopted Golf Course PUD plan did not specify bulk and area requirements for the site. The proposed maximum height of the building is 18 feet and the additional storage area is 9,000 sq. ft. and 1,000 sq. ft. for the office. The total floor area on the 8 acre site is 15,130 sq. ft. with a floor area ratio of .04. 6 The existing storage building is setback from Cemetery Lane by approximately 80 feet. The new building will be approximately 250 feet from Cemetery Lane. From the property of the adjacent residence the existing building is setback approximately 90 feet and the end of the new building will be approximately 150 feet away from the neighbors property line. The adjacent neighborhood is zoned R-15. The required front yard setback is 25 feet and the side yard setback is 10 feet (there is no open space requirement in the R-15). The Parks maintenance and office use well exceeds the dimensional requirements of the adjacent R-15 zone district. V. Section 24-7-903.8.5 addresses the amoullt of parking provided on the site. Parking may be varied through the PUD review process taking into consideration the type of use, parking needs, time periods of use, availability Of public transit and other transportation facilities and the proximity of the development to the commercial core or public recreational facilities. RESPONSE: There are 16 parking spaces for employees and 4-6 spaces for the general public. The application states that the proposed development will not require additional parking. The expansion is not intended to increase the number of employees but to provide for existing equipment and better offices for existing personnel. The site is located adjacent to two RFTA bus routes. One of the primary bike/pedestrian routes in the City passes through the property. The City provides free RFTA bus passes for employees. The Engineering Department accurately pointed out that a employee bike fleet and sufficient bike storage area is not provided or discussed in the application/site plans. VI. Section 24-7-903.B.6 states that open space shall comply with the underlying zoning or may be varied by the PUD review. Response: There is not a specific open space requirement in the Park zone. All proposed development will occur in existing maintenance yard and outdoor storage area. No existing open space will be disturbed as part of this redevelopment. ----------- THRESHOLD ISSUES - There are several issues that staff believes should be discussed at this conceptual level. Following each issue is the Planning and Zoning Commission's response: 1. As part of the design process, the Parks Department and their architect, Glenn Rappaport, prepared several design alternatives. These alternatives were discussed at neighborhood meetings and the 7 PPRG meeting. The submitted application provides, in the Department's opinion, the best design for their purposes. However, the Council may elect to review the other proposals. In addition, the adjacent neighbor, Bill Sharp, has included an alternative in his attached letter, Referral Comments Exhibit B. RESPONSE: The Commission differed in their opinion of the proposal, but in general supported the design proposed by the Parks Department. Commission member comments were: * the long expanse of the wall and the impact of the wall on golfers and neighbors; * an expansion is necessary and the proposal was the most practical and straightforward; * maintenance of the lower height was appropriate; * the central area for equipment movement appeared to work well for the Department 2. Originally, the applicants proposed to relocate the entrance to the Departments facilities. The relocated entrance was further down Cemetery Lane. There was substantial neighborhood opposition to moving the entrance closer to the adjacent residence. The applicants would like to restudy the relocated entrance. RESPONSE: Although there may be some compelling reasons to relocated the entrance that is appears to be an area that has not been extensively studied. The Commission also agreed that when the entrance to Aspen is relocated or redesigned that the entrance to the Parks Department discussion would be more appropriate at that time. 3. A GMQS Exemption for essential public facilities does not negate the requirement to provide employee housing. The applicants are not proposing housing mitigation with the additional office square footage. Although a GMQS Exemption will be reviewed at steps 3 & 4, staff would like to have an initial discussion with the applicant in order to provide ample time and opportunity for the applicant to explore housing if necessary. RESPONSE: The Commission believed that City projects should not be exempt from employee mitigation unlike other development. 4. A conditional use review is required for a park maintenance facility in the Park zone district. The conditional use review will occur at step 3. Is there a conceptual problem with the continued and expanded use at this location? RESPONSE: The Commission explored with the Parks Department alternative sites for their facility. In conclusion the Commission voted to approved the continued use of this site for a Parks and Golf office and maintenance facility. 8 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to Council conceptual PUD approval for the Parks Department maintenance and office expansion with the following conditions as approved and amended: 1. A final architectural plan with elevations of all proposed buildings including identification of building materials shall be included in the submitted final PUD application. 2. A detailed lighting plan and landscape plan shall be included in the final PUD application. 3. A housing mitigation plan shall be provided to mitigate 1.8 employees in the submitted final PUD application. 4. A storm drainage plan shall be included in the submitted final PUD application. 5. A conceptual sidewalk/curb/gutter and paving plan shall be developed with the Engineering Department and submitted for review during final PUD review. 6. A revised site plan shall be included in the final PUD application and shall include: a. trash/recycle area and bike storage/racks; b. on-site parking spaces; and c. relocated 15th Tee and berm near the Tee. 7. Oil and sand separators shall be installed where vehicles are serviced and stored. All chemical/fertilizer storage must be designed to prevent leakage into the public sewer system. 8. The four inch sewer service line shall be replaced. 9. The project shall install an approved automatic sprinkler system. 10. The application for final PUD review shall include the following items: a. detail description of building material b. detailed landscape plan c. a percentage break-out of golf use and parks use of the facility d. analysis of equipment and depreciation costs e. elevations of the proposed building including heights f. employee mitigation plan 11. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning 9 Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions Of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. RECOMMENDED MOTION: " I move to approval conceptual PUD review of the Parks and Golf maintenance and office expansion with the conditions outlined Resolution #_, Series of 1995." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Resolution # EXHIBITS A. Application B. Referral Comments C. Department Recreational Responsibilities D. Expansion Alternatives 10 RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 1995) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE PARKS AND GOLF DEPARTMENT MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND OFFICE, ASPEN, COLORADO WHEREAS, the Aspen Parks and Golf Department has submitted a Planned Unit Development review application to expand their office and maintenance facility at the Golf Course; and WHEREAS, the Department requested a four step review process to ensure that their design proposals would be found acceptable before full architectural drawings were developed; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission did review the conceptual proposal at their May 2, 1995 public meeting; and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the proposal was a necessary expansion and that the conceptual proposal was the least impactive to the surrounding neighborhood, users of the golf course and Highway 82; and WHEREAS, the Commission amended the conditions of approval, identified those items that must be included in the final PUD application and recommend to Council conceptual PUD approval; and WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed the conceptual application at a duly public noticed meeting; and WHEREAS, Council has considered the conditions of approval as amended by the Commission and the Commission's recommendation. 1 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen City Council that it does hereby approve the conceptual PUD development proposal for the expansion of the Parks and Golf office and maintenance facility with the following conditions: 1. A final architectural plan with elevations of all proposed buildings including identification of building materials shall be 1 included in the submitted final PUD application. 2. A detailed lighting plan and landscape plan shall be included in the final PUD application. 3. A housing mitigation plan shall be provided to mitigate 1.8 employees in the submitted final PUD application. 4. A storm drainage plan shall be included in the submitted final PUD application. 5. A conceptual sidewalk/curb/gutter and paving plan shall be developed with the Engineering Department and submitted for review during final PUD review. 6. A revised site plan shall be included in the final PUD application and shall include: a. trash/recycle area and bike storage/racks; b. on-site parking spaces; and c. relocated 15th Tee and berm near the Tee. 7. Oil and sand separators shall be installed where vehicles are serviced and stored. All chemical/fertilizer storage must be designed to prevent leakage into the public sewer system. 8. The four inch sewer service line shall be replaced. 9. The project shall install an approved automatic sprinkler system. 10. The application for final PUD review shall include the following items: a. detail description of building material b. detailed landscape plan c. a percentage break-out of golf use and parks use of the facility d. analysis of equipment and depreciation costs e. elevations of the proposed building including heights f. employee mitigation plan 2 11. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. APPROVED by the Council at a regularly scheduled meeting June 12, 1995. BY: John Bennett, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado at a meeting held , 1995. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 3 EÂ«HIBIT B MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office From: Chuck Roth, Engineering Department (3*2 Date: April 14,1995 Re: City of Aspen Parks & Golf Maintenance Facility PUD Substantial Amendment. Conceptual Development Plan, GMQS Exemption & Conditional Use Review (585 Cemetery Lane, a portion ofLot 1, Aspen Golf Course Subdivision) Having reviewed the above referenced application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. PUD Plat Amendment - When the review process is complete, prior to issuance of any building permits, a PUD plat amendment must be provided for filing. The plat must include at least an existing conditions map, proposed site plan and proposed landscaping plan. Two sets of mylars will be required. 2. Site Drainage - The application is not thorough concerning site drainage. If the project is approved, storm runoff drainage design must be included on the building permit drawings. The plan must provide for no more than historic flows to leave the site as required by Section 24-7- 1004.C.4.f in the City Code. There appears to be sufficient area that percolation into landscaped spaces of flows from newly constructed impermeable surfaces may suffice. 3. Sidewalk. Curb and Gutter - There are several possibilities for sidewalk and or trail improvements. Construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter is required by City Code (Sec. 19-98) for new construction. Sidewalk needs in the area are identified by the "Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway System" Plan (the "Ped Plan") for Cemetery Lane and Highway 82. a. The applicant should be required to construct a short pedestrian interconnect between the existing trail and the RFTA bus stop and shelter on Highway 82. There is an existing "beaten path" for the twenty or so feet between the trail and the bus stop. b. Cemetery Lane is a location that has been identified by the "Ped Plan" as a "primary (cornmuter)" pedestrian route. It has not been identified actively by the Neighborhood Advisory Committee as needing sidewalks immediately. Several opportunities for obtaining 1 sidewalk segments have been bypassed and agreements to construct have been accepted in lieu. The Engineering Department recommends that sidewalk construction on Cemetery Lane commence with this application and that the applicant be required to construct sidewalk along Cemetery Lane and around the comer on Highway 82 to the bus stop with curb and gutter at the corner. The Cemetery Lane right-of-way width is substandard. The width is 60'. City Code requires a 100' width for an arterial. There is no five or ten year plan for Cemetery Lane improvements. Judging from the current community guidelines, it is difficult to imagine forming an improvement district, condemning and acquiring right-of-way, and providing 2- 12' travel lanes, 2-6' bike lanes, 2-8' parking lanes, a 5' buffer on each side and a 5' sidewalk on each side for a total of 72 feet. It appears that the community will go with what it has now, a 60' wide right-of-way. This suggests no on-street parking or parking on one side only with a slightly reduced buffer space between the curb and the sidewalk. In any case of staying with the 60' wide ROW, the sidewalk would be adjacent to the existing property lines. 4. Mass Transit - It may be appropriate to require that the applicant pave the "shoulder" adjacent to their property used by the RFTA buses for entry and exit to the bus shelter, and install curb and gutter along that paved edge. 5. Access & Driveways - The proposed access is too close to both a curve and a number o f trees to provide safe sight distance to the north. We recommend relocating the new access to the north property boundary. This is adjacent to the Sharp property. The applicant should work with that property owner to explore the option. 6. Utilities - Any new surface utility needs for pedestals or other equipment must be installed on an easement provided by the applicant and not in the public ight-of-way. 7. Trash & Utility Area - The final development plans must indicate the trash storage area. which may not be in the public right-of-way. All trash storage areas should be indicated as trash and recycle areas. Any trash and recycle areas that include utility meters or other utility equipment must provide that the utility equipment not be blocked by trash and recycle containers. 8. Parking - The parking space requirements have not been well defined. However there appears to be sufficient parking for the needs. The final plat must indicate, number, label and dimension the parking spaces. The plat should also contain the statement of the number of employees at the site and the number of parking spaces intended for employee versus guest use. If conditions change in the future, additional parking may be required. 10. Street Lights - With other land use applications, we have required that cobra head lights on utility poles be replaced with standard antique street lights. The last antique light leaving town is a twin globe light at the west end of the Castle Creek Bridge. There are two cobra head lights at the intersection of Cemetery Lane and Highway 82. Perhaps those lights should be upgraded with this 2 development. Or, with the impending entrance to Aspen discussions, perhaps these street lights should be postponed and an agreement to install in the future provided. There is one street light across Cemetery Lane from the project and no other lights for quite some distance down Cemetery Lane. There is no formal street light plan for Cemetery Lane. The plan that was created by the 1988 street light project was lights at corners and mid-block. The need for new street lights along Cemetery Lane should be discussed. 11. Bicycles - Employee and visitor use of bicycles was not discussed. The applicant should probably be required to provide bicycles for employee use and bike racks for employee and visitor use. 12. Other Conditions of Approval - a. No tracking of mud onto City streets shall be permitted during construction. b. The applicant shall agree to join any improvement districts formed for the purpose of constructing improvements in adjacent and neighborhood public rights-of-way. c. For the applicant's protection, as well as any possible grantees, the final plat should state that all easements of record as indicated on Title Policy No. , dated have been shown on the survey. 13. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights-of-way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: The applicant shall consult city engineering (920-5088) for design considerations of development within public rights-of-way, parks department (920-5120) for vegetation species, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within public rights-of-way from city streets department (920-5130). cc: Cris Caruso George Robinson Black Shack Studio M95.92 3 .* : -_ *.---.* ..JA. --. *-Il -- ----1.*- .*&*;/6<*: 1-----;--j&-&-;*J-&.---.'.-#'. --/ j Memorandum To: Leslie Lamont, Planner CC: From: Ed Van Walraven, Fire Marshal Date: April 3,1995 Subject: City Of Aspen Parks and Golf Maint. Facility Leslie, This project shall have an approved automatic sprinkler system installed. This system shall be in accordance with NFPA 13. Provisions shall also be made for the storage of all hazardous materials. 2~you have any questions please contact me. 2233 - U Ed EAspei )onsofidated 6anitation firici 565 North Mill Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Tele. (303) 925-3601 FAX #(303) 925-2537 Sy Kelly Â· Chairman Michael Kelly Albert Bishop Â· Treas. Frank Loushin Louis Popish Â· See Bruce Matherly, Mgr. .: Je nÂ·.-:trÂ» Aprii 4. 1995 ft 0. Lesiie Lamont -, rianning Office APR 0 6 1995 ~ 130 S. Gaiena 1 Aspen. CO 81611 H e : 91 n y of Aspen rar KS & Golf Faciii tÂ·,- PUD .4 â€ž,, Dear Leslie: ine District currently has sufficient line and treatment capacity -. to serve this deveiopment. aervice is contingent upon compiiance with District Ruies and Reguiations which are on file a E the District W...U-1 r- 12 f i r-= We wiii require tne installation or oii and sana separators in the enclosed areas where vehicles are maintained anc stored. We would also require than the agricuiturai, chemical storage areas be designed so that Yertilizers and other chemicals ccuid not be accidentally introduced into the pubiic sewer system. 1 . rretiminary engineering zo improve the on site sewer system was Comnier.ed in 1993. The curren: four inch diameter on site coliection system is inadequate and should be replaced with an eighl. inch diameter line. ey acing so. the main line serving the various buildings on sine. could be dedicated to the uisrrict for future maintenance. :ne existing rour inch system is shal iow and routinely freezes up in the winner monchs. Please cail if you have any questions. Sincereiv. Bruce Matherly District Manazer EPA Awards of Excellence 1976 Â· 1986 Â· 1990 Regional and National CE#D 9\ ~ [MAR 2 0 1995 ~ MEMORANDUM C 4, \492. f -4.-C t TO: STAN CLAUSON, CO1MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FROM: PHIL OVEREYNDER, WATER DIRECTOR 14 DATE: MARCH 20, 1995 SUBJECT: WATER SERVICE FOR EXPANDED PARKS AND GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE BUILDING The City of Aspen presently provides water service to the subject property. An expansion of the building to include toilet, work sink, and lavatory is consistent with our service plans for the area. The Aspen Water Department has adequate facilities to serve the proposed expansion and will provide service subject to compliance with current water system standards. A water utility connection permit will be required to provide for the expansion of water use as proposed. Our review of the building plans and issuance of permits will be necessary to ensure compliance with City of Aspen Standards. CC: Rebecca Baker, Parks David Bellack, Assistant City Attorney PO:rl /phi12/mtcebldg.ws APR 20 '95 01:37PM ASPEN HOUSING OFC P. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office FROM: Cindy Christensen. Housing Office DATE: April 20, 1995 RE: City of Aspen Parks & Golf Maintenance Facility PUD Substantial Amendment, Conceptual Development Plan, GMQS Exemption and Conditicnal Use Review Parcel ID No. 2735-111-09-001 ISSUE: The City of Aspen Parks Department is proposing to construct 9,000 additional square feet of storage space to the current City of Aspen Parks and Golf Maintenance Facility siter and approximately 1,000 square feet of additional office space. aACKGRQUND: The City of Aspen Parks Department is classified as an essential public facility and pursuant to Section 8-104, C, b, Iii): A development 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, rcad and transit services, and the need for basic services including but not limRed to water supply, sewage treatment, drainage control, fire and policy protection, and solid waste disposal. ft shall be demonstrated that the proposed development has a negrigibie adverse impact on the city's air, water, land and energy resources, and is visually compatible with surrounding areas. RECOMMENDATION: Even though this is classified as an essential public facility, according to Section 8-104, C, b, (ii), the City still has to mitigate for housing. The bulk of the additional development of 9,000 aquare feet is strictly storage space so will not count in mitigation for employees. The 1,000 square feet for additional office space has to be mitigated and ia calculated as follows: Office (O) : 3.00 employees/1,000 square feet 3.00 + 1,000 X 1,000 square feet X 60% = 1.8 FTE's Therefore, a total of 1.8 employees need to be mitigated. The Housing Beard has established priorities in the Affordable Housing Guidelines regarding mitigating affordable housing impacts. The priorities are as follows: 1. On-site housing 2. Off-site housing, including buydown concept 3. Cash-in-lieu/land-in-lieu. - 1- -Â· 2. /6-El-,3.\ 14, Ve, 01 April 27,1995 APR 2 7 1995 DEVELOPMENT Leslie Lamont CO,ilÂ·.9~ 'Â·.; i 'f Aspen & Pitkin Regional 4SPEN /964. Planning & Zoning Dept. 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Leslie, In regards to the city of Aspen's parks and golf maintenance facility conceptual development plan, we believe we have an alternative plan that would have less impact and be more efficient. Please refer to attached for location of proposed. The reasons we find our plan to be better are as follows: 1. In the proposed location, the storage building will be somewhat hidden and less of an eyesore. The existing ponds and trees will help to hide it. 2. With the already existing drive/entrance there will be ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO BUILD A BRIDGE across the east pond (hence less work, less money, no defacing of the pond, etc.) 3. For residents. the noise level will not increase as the existing trees and ponds will help to absorb the increased noise from use. 4. Efficiency, the location is more centrally located to the other existing buildings and no additional pavement will be required. We feel strongly that our alternative plan will better serve the community not only in price but also in keeping with Aspen's goal of more "open space". We also feel that if the city sold some of the unused junk that just sits there scattered around, Aspen would not have to build a shed to store it all, and may have a little money left over. Imagine that. Sincerely, Bob Sharp, Bill, Pat, Carole & Ian Sharp / 'h f L.,/-, v' 3 , 1 V L,â€¢ . - . 1 1~ ~9* 716621 . 5 uGG E gÂ¥(o.v 1 i 7108 91_01*CE- - 1 ' I. -74 ts , 0 ,<05 T #,op g-4 5,- f'- -- - - f - - AJ'CAT-~/â€¢*Â·' - 0 ~ - CurrlÂ«Y--~-_-- -, *li - . - -- - Il - --lill- 1 14 g-Ers Pot,r u e â€ž~g - I . , ve F Â£ 2-5â€¢ 0. T A â‚¬ E-8 r 1 'Lj'ts J . Y J fl I r. iÂ· â€¢AnÂ¢ V .Â·./ ~.1 ' ,24< -- plt,~wn.4.nre-,â€¢M"Â·h# / 6?l / 4.-)0~37 .-h. A. 1 ~u_ o w s * A 6.- F. 0 05 ,Â¥ '1 - h 4. AA 4451 : F# s /3 u rkÂ£ f Te 37.7 ' ~.â€ž~Â»1 -, 4,2 1 t~ H Â¢212-Â¢5 Ofâ‚¬tar-le 0 -00â‚¬14â‚¬42 : cÂ«f~ 1 t &4 (21 --M Â£0 e VierÂ·., f---T S A , 1. e.r 5 ve r Â£72 v , s es/U (c *F - g x: . . .<r, fcpii. 441*Â·-92. Â»Sr 9 + T 1 C f.w a C 140 * NAQUF'110111 . e -. --â€¢.r,illerf *14 1 A g.-,7 0 : O 0-4 2. 'â€¢hf.r,r,11Â·.rir, '. IV; ...... '-hu 11 - : ... I 61 - r *Vi l\\ Â«_.1 J#. \" -4-9- & - - 1 P.% %0 3 Jiv J ..16\ lilli . ./ . 4 ) 40 : ., -/ / , /'.' f J,'-4 .. I . f ..10111 h Y. 4 stÂ· 4- -AFFM\\41\ 10~'*\ 1% A ,% . 7.11 1"]1' Illl k '' : , Â· d â€¢. t 1 1 W '\.1 F- , lilli L '-j A. ~Â£734-A#tv'0"';X~UVRHWAN//'~&*f '~- 1 Tmimmni:r'-4 i 1 - 10 0-' 011 E PLAN 64'-Â· .CALE Â· 1' : 50'Â· 0' ~ wimen SAn,p ,Â· Â·Â· 3 3 1914 Box 8630 Aspen, CO 81612 9 16- 400 4- - - AESÂ£ 1 E LA M O Wl-- DA Rks / 4 OAr 11â€¢ arrE-Al **c g. ST-OR K< EXPANS#ON . Gj 6 E ST , aws: WHY KE-Er Â£ bÂ·r... E~ 0, FrÂ¢EuÂ¥ 7- +40,7 A At Brat w R.C PLACED ./ b .oÂ¥ ,# UST! ~10Â¥ 90 YoU Nrra 21*vy t. *try t< 0 1 .. c k Q u . 1' w 6-â€¢UT 7 W*+ Â¥ P 0 -r *L uc K 5 . .-re 0Â£113 GAALâ€¢ 4 1 4 0,0,7-to,va. OVVI C Â« SPACE. 1 WHY A Covâ‚¬Cco EUTRANct pv)tit-w N rE u i BE VeÂ¢#+ f *41'lou: /*rn ,- 7-"i-4/ .0 0 Yo v M.rE-5 5 Uct# A }# (4 4 Â¥ A c t LiI-,F ,> WP+Y KEEP Luwatle A,lt) SUÂ¢Â¥67 Aâ€¢,li Â¥66â€¢â€¢ mut Surrâ€¢Â£-,ti> W BY Nor IC E-k P .5 d k E- 6-4 1, / PHâ‚¬Wor v, 1+ re r rou u $ w- Cr} 4 13 I.. g#.* a F wimang 564 4 12 5- coer 6- Smc 0630 ~ Â·~. Ce, /4, Aspcn. CO 11 4 81612 3-93- C C. â‚¬ 1-e-.1 Y A-W E April 19, 1995 Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: City of Aspen Parks and Golf Department's Land Use Application for expansion of Maintenance Storage Facilities Dear Commissioners, We are writing you to request the approval of the City of Aspen Parks and Golf Department's Land Use application for the construction of a 9,000 square foot storage building and the expansion of 1,000 square feet of office space at the existing golf and parks maintenance and operations facility on Cemetery Lane. We believe the existing facilities are inadequate to meet the needs of the operations for these departments. The amount of equipment and supplies that are stored outside is inexcusable. The City has hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in this equipment and it should not be left out in the rain, sun and snow on a continual basis. This severely cuts down on the equipment life, increases the breakdowns on equipment, and increases costs for golfers, and taxpayers in general. The USGA has commented on the lack of adequate maintenance and storage facilities in every report on the City of Aspen Golf Course. The request for expansion of office space is also justifiable. Currently there are eight people sharing the small office building. There is no space to conduct a meeting without kicking someone out of their office and even then it is difficult to accommodate more than four to five people in an office. We have reviewed the proposed design and feel it is an appropriate design for the course and efficient for the facility area. The proposed building is well hidden from the view of the golf course and surrounding neighbors, as well as improving the current exposed maintenance yard. We urge your support of this project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. Sincerely, - 4-Chuck Torinus President, Aspen Golf Committee .. E*HIBIT C PARKS DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES The City of Aspen Parks Department is responsible for a variety of management and maintenance duties, including 32 parks, the mall. pedestrian and bicycle trails, winter nordic trails, 5 miles of street trees, 200+ acres of open space, ditches, and building maintenance. The following list details the specifics of some of the maintenance duties: Parks: Seed, aerify, fertilize, rototill, mow (once a week), plant and maintain flowers, clean up, rake leaves, safety checks, playground checks, oiling picnic tables and trash barrels in 28 parks and properties. Designs, builds and maintains future parks. Trees: Trimming and maintenance of street trees. Approves all tree removal in the city limits. Plants and trims trees in parks and city ROW. Trails: Mowing, litter control, tree and shrub trimming 24 miles for pedestrian Wails. Annual fall and spring set up and tear down for 40 miles of nordic trails. Grooming of 40 mile track approximately 3 dmes per week during ski season. Mall: Plants and maintains flowers, trees and turf. Maintains mall streams and fountains. Maintains mall restrooms and trash removal daily. Maintains brick and playground. Building Maintenance: City Hall and city housing. Ditches: Keeps debris cleared and maintains water level. Irrigation: Installation and maintenance in parks and properties, the mall and Rubey Park. Snow Removal: The mall, Rubey Park, Firehouse, Art Museum, and approximately 4 miles of pedestrian trails. Litter Control: Clean the core and Highway 82 to AABC of trash. Parks.Parks Responsibilities 1 PARKS DEPARTMENT STAFF: Permanent Staff: Year-round staff Parks Director George Robinson Assistant Parks Director Rebecca Baker Lead Parks Supervisor Ken Collins Trails S upervisor John Shaffner Parks Foreman Steve Slack Irrigation Coordinator Tom Rubel Administrative Assistant Karma Borgquist Mechanic WEquipment Operator Duane Franklin Heavy Equipment Operator U Scott Maynard Maintenance Operator I James Ayers Maintenance Operator I Luis Contreras Maintenance Operator I Lars Larsen Maintenance Operator I Todd Manzanares Maintenance Operator/I Bartolo Mendoza Maintenance Operator I Martin Mendoza Maintenance Operator I Ramon Perez Trails Maintenance Patrick Fitzharris Temporary Staff: Regular/seasonal employees (returning) and temporary seasonal employees (working one or two seasons only) S ummer: Flower Crew 3 Mowing Crew j 1 Mall/Parks Maintenance 2 Parks Maintenance 1 Mall Maintenance 1 Trails Maintenance 1 Winter: Nordic Crew 3 1 CITY OF ASPEN GOLF DEPARTMENT STAFF EMELQIEE EQSHIQM Steve Aitken Director of Golf Rich Coulombe Assistant Golf Supervisor Dominic Lanese Assistant Golf Supervisor Jud Brooks Mechanic Rich Severy Supervisor Mike Galvin Irrigation Technician Chris Overall Operator Bruce Giddings Operator Dan Dangler Maintenance Terry Dangler Maintenance Jimmy Rodriguez Maintenance Randy Rein= Maintenance Fitz Scott Maintenance Jim Lutz Maintenance Terry Cagnoni Maintenance Dennis Handley Maintenance John Mitchel Maintenance Open Maintenance Open Maintenance 1 Exhibit:~, Organizational Lis~-s PARKS DEPARTMENT LIST OF EOUIPMENT AND USAGE TIME IN USE Y.EHICLES: City Trucks (5) 2080 hours Dump Truck 160 hours Stakebed Truck 80 hours Daihatsu Utility Vehicle 880 hours Mitsubishi Udlity Vehicle 6 months HEAVY EOUIPMENT: Loader 720 hours Backhoe 200 hours Bobcat 500 hours Bobcat 200 hours Tennant Mall Sweeper 150 hours MISCELLANEOUS EOUIPMENT: Toro 580D Groundsmaster 880 hours Steiner Tractors (3) 720 hours Steiner Tractors (2) 6 months Kubota Tractor 560 hours Cushman Water Sprayer 100 hours Rotouller 40 hours Moibo Mobile Compressor 80 hours Big Compressor 80 hours Water Wiggle (Portable Irrigation System) 80 hours Weedeaters 6 months IMPLEMENTS / ATTACHMENTS: Lily Spreader 64 hours Snowblowers (2) 6 months Snowblades 6 months Snowbrooms 7 months Aerator 120 hours Steiner Aerator 48 hours Bobhoe 80 hours Forks 240 hours Auger 32 hours Kubota Tiller 32 hours Steiner Airfier 48 hours Trencher 40 hours 1 ... Landscape Rake Flail Mower QIHER STORED ITEMS: 100 bags of seed and 300 bags of fertilizer used each year using 128 square feet of floor space. 52 trash barrels and 24 picnic tables are also stored at the Parks Department in the winter months. Parks.Parks Equipment 2 I I. 1994 GOLF EQUIPMENT LIS , EQUIPMENT SIZE USE PER YEAR PLACE STORED 1981 Toyota 4x4 16x6 8000 miles Outside 1984 Toyota 4x4 16x6 7000 miles Outside 1987 Toyota 4x4 16x6 15000 miles Outside 1990 Chevrolet Dump Truck 24x8 4000 miles Outside 1989 Jacobsen LF-100 #1 10x8 400 hours Inshop 1989 Jacobsen LF-100 #2 10x8 400 hours In shop 1981 Jacobsen Greensking #3 10x6 250 hours Mower Shed 1982 Jacobsen Greensking #4 1 0x6 250 hours Mower Shed | 1986 Jacobsen Greensking #5 10x6 250 hours Mower Shed 1987 Jacobsen Greensking #6 10x6 275 hours In shop 1989 Jacobsen Greensking #7 10x6 150 hours Mower Shed 1991 Jacobsen Greensking #8 10x6 350 hours In shop 1993 Jacobsen Greensking #9 10x6 300 hours In shop 1990 Toro Sand Pro #2 7x6 150 hours Outside 1993 Toro Sand Pro #3 7x6 250 hours Outside 1971 Cushman #1 11 x5 150 hours Outside 1981 Cushman #2 11 x5 150 hours Outside 1988 Cushman #3 11 x5 150 hours Outside 1990 Cushman #4 11 x5 200 hours Outside 1992 Cushman #5 11 x5 300 hours Outside 1988 Hahn Sprayer 6xl 0 100 hours Inshop 1988 Dajhatsu Workcart 11 x5 2000 miles Outside 1980 Jacobsen UV-4 Workcart 11 x5 575 hours Outside 1988 Ryan GA-30 3x7 40 hours Beck Shed 1990 Ryan GA-60 12x 14 25 hours Marolt Shed 1989 Toro 216 4x8 400 hours Outside 1992 Toro 325D 4x10 - 300 hours Outside 1984 Jacobsen F-10 16x9 300 hours Outside 1979 Massey Tractor 17x8 400 hours Outside 1982 Jacobsen G-20 Tractor 11 x8 200 hours Outside 1991 Olathe Sweeper Vac 12x10 100 hours Marolt Shed 1981 Chevrolet 1/2 ton pickup 20x7 6000 miles Outside 1994 John 0eere 2653 4x8 500 hours Outside 1994 Easy Go #1 11 x5 200 hours Outside 1994 Easy Go #2 11 x5 200 hours Outside 1994 Toro 5300D Fairway Mower 1 0x8 350 hours In shop National Mower 6xl 0 250 hours Outside Hand Mowers Weedeaters f Ce- ~~EL- -a.~-~AÂ«Â» -4--~Â«4 U.o U_Â£~,t~- seitdi- u '9<3 -9--94 *di ~2Â»~ 6-9 / 114 0-03- k-Auto 43â‚¬et "Â·- 4 a U~_0 (p.~41A- bl~ _ 22Â£00 ---Q-*so - Jo *-uÂ»-0, 4Â£-30 1. 1135% o e_-6 - . _ _ I. c. cleÂ·citab -0/VÂ·61..(.VÂ·L C.Lj- I'"t aeye-D Q_ ____ ~4.-010 -4-b'NUL - 44*t-ct 6950Â» u'1 -40 eÂ»u- 40 918 4 1 _.--6.L - ________ * -Ag. Â» j ti 3'UGÂ·en 1/6#kit*#t - cork, o W. r\â‚¬.00 & ex,~-3.-L- -pcu- Poil~ A ---- - ~Â»-R_ C~-06- / af-Pt+Lizit 01.2- 40 tent-~Â¥UU- 41 . _ -____ ..9Â·2415,4 42 9Â·lp-Â«Â« 1\L Ocr AL 1. CLY#Z# 734$0(12042 421 43)/4-6 - &10 1Â© Â· Â·-uk>Â«aÂ« Off 9 mojoÂ» C:3-XJ ' V'<_ 014 Â«_41-9 \Â©u #Ux_-4 _ TY.11%77 4 u)42 -3 LulU _it eoa-4 a./ 44.3 8 untl esh : 0- '64 }002 #LUS Â»Il J galÂ«Â»t.-l VtÂ«-Â«Â», 3---- A 2,31 ...61 Des / */0 A LT ge_N A-h U E * I %3 ~", 9 91 < joi-liD ~ ----- -4 ..t . 092/\Wfal , 1242--0 - / / =h- t . - 1 . - wft. tt .G''G *-Hl'-~-1-hv -c~~_.3-3,-.6 .-7 -..7 Ell L --* -- rar uWMilittilitri %*a L .r; Â·Â· 1 -: V. 3. 41#11'11 1.1 . \ 7--, 1.'' '' . , ./. fi , I \ - 9 1 -\ , L -: 01 . L'(1 -~ ) 7 1 , 1 1 t, 1 ' -Wir ~ ./*C:'\iltlf.rk) 1 1 Numiritru orn\..4 \14rht.trttitrimt, p?, rid - 1. , ly, /,. i \ i 1 F / 1 - . / . h. vii . t .. 3 j. 1 --- -- -r- - 1 - I , 1#11.1-[trri -.Mi ', 1 1. \' ' Â· Tm~/ 1! 1 11~ ii'~- 1 1 , \ . . ... 4 Y- . (~12p" Arri. . li i1~~~ e ~ . ~,~ t. , ro AR ... F*j J. -1/9 - LI 1 1 -(1 4 , 4 4 /:+r-:9\ . f.1 -~A ~ . /=-C - -/yAÂ¥ AMAN 12114 1 ' -r -4 l. ,/ - 7Â·*1~--FÂ«li~- 1 1 - 4//4 / m 4 r|titeF 4 l- \ , - .. . . id? .... 42 411 0 1 T\th ttÂ«-Trtl,ttr I . . r Â·-- -4 + . 47 . 4 $ 411 i \ 7 - , Â·41 ~ #- ~ ijlâ‚¬MN - *af --- hp. - L. 1, l, 't dI'llF , f 1 - 412 ---- 1 4~Hrm'fl ' 1 WTWY~t. L. U (<4 . 1 ..1 7 i ) -r -Â· Â· -~o,i i- iÂ· ~' 1 7, / 1 -- # CÂ» G 044 -- - 1 -\11 6, . ,- to 2- t ,14 1 1111 tkil Qt~!h' " l.] 1111~ ~ 1 - ' ., T _-,1.- . f,< ;233\lr((441114.lt5~Il -Â· Â· ~ ty}y- h i{ t. T_ Ull'IL n -4"11- , . 4 - r.Â·-3 44-, 2 3) 4 J i 1 34: A /1 ' I 07;'.; A'h CL V. 1 /71-*23'1-7 -; l., t. my :. :. 1~/0 - X 1 -2 4il<147 :J /4.le[Â¢ . r - i \ '. . -0 --C.lff*}~r' 2 1 4 W - ...Ay>., 1 11[1;Â£ *Uk .7 - \ \. 'ft 4---- . chtn *11 i&Â·fj -. *A -1.1-n \\ ' 1-*-1 . 4 K . -- r \ 1 129%1 4 FIA - 2 , I - .r i M Of --â‚¬ \ .-/ 4,4 -,-0.48.281\\\\A\ , 1 3/1 , 12 9 , it f &,1 1 i h 1 f , , 7 . , - lilli Pi- - Â· ..r., .ft f ' f t. 1 - ift.- Lt- - 1 4 .4, :,4 c .. '14 -. 214 ' 2 '4 n 1111 1 "IM ,- - I 0 ' .) 1. finfli ' Â· ~ i 14.' - < ,-n : . 'UFT li i , p 6 v: - 1 U~ 1 301, P. 40 - â‚¬ 1 *// - 1.-11 . ' . / 1 62481 1 . - - %4 -,<3 (Ct -1.yei~Ag ff 5 F , 130,Lt,t,/6.1 1 1, - I ' . 1 ' ... I /--' - 1 t 6 -- - 1 W - - C - _ - mim--[jrr- 11 e 1111 mlmmitplz.{OC54 . I ill~ I 1 -- , J i . - *ITE PLAN - /:1 1111( - - - *4031 t]TEEK- -Â© SCALE : P. 50'-o" t'.St...! 3 0 1994 . 4. 11 31.9-c=:;Al ' . I / , 1 ~ ---I -4 . A-GAg.ee 4 1712,91 -rill:U 0 k GARAae 7106-0" 7100/.Dit 7 tool-01{ . m 0 1 - 5 m m LINE OP TF,&61242 LOFT LINE 44; TeAclom LÂ·Â°FT ~ . - A60Â¥5 0 110'-c# . ADWE 8 110904 \ 1 - m #r. -.---j4 - r a k m ~ M r F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . . 1 - , il'-0" ~ folp#'-1_Piof<_-1-- 39,.94 1~ 101-011 ~ fo'-0* ~ fz,Low , 121-011 1 ld# ~ DsÂ»LoÂ« 1 fo'- 0, ~ fo'-60/ ~ ld-(,U ~ 1 1 '-04 E- .4 T WAMP. 4 f FLoote F 1- A 1Â·1 ~ ~~_ jz< - -7/ 3- â‚¬64 LE : 11*" . 11-0,1 -/ t S % - 1 2 $6 T.,57. IZAPP . T 1,271- 0,1 < dE,TANC:'146 â€¢5*AM NrrL. goof n ~ ~ , Â· , 1 : 1 1 1 -- 1 j i I i 1 i ; i ,; i j .5, 4 T.O. MATE i 11â‚¬'-011 BEBE B BuB --- u ~| ~ 01% -888_8 I A ter. FLAP g --- --- -- -- - - - -+ - - -- - - -- - - - -- ril j 1001 - 04 FETANING u./ALL j w E 9 -r ELEVATIoN 4 6 A LE = lA G H â‚¬ 11, o u ~ T.Q.rzooF 117'.04 j \%Â· __ 1 1-- o. PLATE r, Bu 9 1 1994 '- ~ fer. FLOOF- ? 1001.011 110-,\Â¥ V 1 11 ! 1 11:i . â€¢1 .4/1 - It.f.. N J 1 7 81 1 1 1 *TOMAGE LEVEL ER-rff -17 el-ort. BE ADOVE I --4 BAN,GE LEVEL- 4001K ELEVATIoN 4 G A L E : 96"â€¢ f'- 6574 L - 81Â» FAVU 1. . - A Xzlzf.9 1/.U).2.1 /VÂ»14241 A ~ GATZÂ·AGE. =r I j r < 4.- 41 <-04 th -I * I % 1 *.* . IASEI #BGTIoN A #G A L E : *B"Â· 10- 04 F =m 1,11 025 14 Aj A L VER.N A -, 1 v e AL :XÂ·- - 1.0.i lilil lilli 11 . t 1 Ill 11 1 1 1 -no. MATE Iii '11 . T Ne'_0â€¢ 1.Â·1.Â£1 RBBEROB OBBEBUB - 0 1 + GrUPE. 1001-Of' WE61- E L E V & 1- 1 0 N --- --- --- -- --- -- -- -- -- -- - ---- --- -- -6, 4(ALE 2 149. = It o. arT to M - 1 ~ -Ill-% - /. // / 21 --0 -0 0 %1 - - -% - 7-< BIGHwkY -:. 1 TruTia - W- , - 01 901 - 4-6~illi3 J I -- \ 1 Â·Â· 4,9Â·381 7-31 i ;7:. i.Â· i . :1,1-1=-1 . 6 ' -44 1 ~r:* - *+Adll'~.7 . C. i - Â«14-6-rl. a r . GlÂ®10 d Â·Â·3'. - 11 . , - 1"ttic Or%.11,1,111,#irt,nt ' 'lltir,hOF . T ..- LK - I b . 1 - Ill - Â·:J x-,1- 44' r.-:)j v, - f 4 , . 4. 2. 8, Ir,/3 *... --j Yl IIi;Iii :Â· li 1.dintra.t A" , 49 Y//.hi?, 9 r ~t*> ~~fr . Ii' 111! . , 9 --1 ///\ i.~ 2 I. 3. ~1 r,Câ€¢ 4.Ip H * I - 1 - li . 4 /.3 lili .- o 11-2 - rit\141 # I L , 1 1 1<2 1. 4 . . r I r ' . r. I h., 1-7 44 / ia rE , -- *4{114(0 1 , .' N~râ‚¬ 9 IL//1- -2*4446~|14 ~r2_ j - r.>36 - x c.' l _I-/ f V / l/3 .r=,2-- - I*frt'14,811*rt .,i/\ 9 C ti \L- r / f /ILÂ» ALL< ,. ? j 34 -Li' -T.K - - NA . - 4=. 12 , . Z. r' t' 1 AlhtÂ·r<Trnitto ;t rti..r- v -* .*.47 K \/ 4 ' #f 0- <Â·3( c' Â¥41 I 4 ~/A: 2 P l< 1~, 4 - /1 - Â° Lly : nu. 1 1- e -t ~ c r. I t . v A : r.w.),PA 9// 4 1 / , Im;- . ,$1~~ ~ il, 1 1 - ... I ,/ t. / 4 ' . ' / * 20 6Ee--r - 6 - t 62 . 29 '714 i 7\/A: - \lif#44'lil.1//j ~i44 5 ill,uu,- . - T . - c ~ Â· 46 :C yqllk y.... 1 Â¥-3 JO! 4 ' ' t.* 4%1*1 ~3- 4,Alt\,~, \.-< t, 9 1-Â·61- ' '4r'* -,- -.1 4 'P -- . 87.- thlf' . 11-â‚¬- Â· . .. -utÂ·Â·g. 1') C -'.VIT' lE-31. + -7 / n Â· I I ; 1 r -1\ Â·Â· # I J. ... -I - 1 0 - - I i. 075' 'Â·:--iW\Â·Jil' , Â· Ntrl'14 -- - Â«tu . - - - \Y Ell g * 4 7 --- 1 / ' . - . 1 11 - S. 1 \9 7:,r' I . I I A K. I . / r- , , A , .- Â· . ca-3 1,1. 1 L-fr\\\\\U\\ Ilan ' ILL//l- 0 , Lil r Â· 1 - - -v.,1 1, 1 .1./9 --".--64"rii, Mi~11'-*. .. .- , I . / , f -- ' 1 . ..-- f f 40 XÂ·-:W - 1 fl . 110 4 61 , 1 I I. 1 - 4. .r< 7... I : 44 .14 I .': /,1 3 1 - ., 'W ..1 . 2 e r\ _s .2 i.56 ~ t . 4 1 r /4.4 . 301. 7 1 ..Â£ I . I ./ 1- .9.2 bÂ» I #14 .76 3-9#*- I - :, t le 3 _~ ~-L - L - 4 1 0 , 0 1 . 9& .e. fi,/bide. ~ 91 - 0 - *. 1 4 -- r ' PV " , I - - ,- 133* I ..., â‚¬ -- 945 *- .... 1 , , /' 1512-(CXSE 3 0 1394 ark / /6. faw ... - -'' 7 -Â·32* , A.A." / % . , :11 -- 0 1 T E lo L A N - 0 PTIoll 1 ima . 17 1 OCALE F- 55 -0" =NOE-* Â®.*.: .i~216. . 1 ..- -'ll- I ALÂ·- 1325/(57\1 AGE KNATIVE -* 2 -~ 1. 4. 0 1.- 1 T. o. Foop --'ICâ„¢E 7 f ze,_ c~. t. T. 0. PLATE 1 T. 4 4*1-6 - j 1[Â·21-OIl O -R El- 8 %20}Â®f" 8- REI B 42 - A.7179 - y:-il I Nt '- \. N i &;LAPe '1 i I impum 1 .H â‚¬ 9 -9. BLEVAT~0 - - 2-----2-3*51:-grz' - u==*745 -22>- e & ActÂ· E Q './16 " - 1'- 0 ' 02<.CH 0 - ' .-/ rr--r. -- S 1 _ HIGHWAY -I *i# ' 9 19 9 02* ij~Il~ 4% ..C- râ‚¬- 6 . c-----#40 . / r--4 * '41~,~r~ii~, 1 - 9- 4 - \ . 1 /4 . r C - ' 1 9-Mul h. ,. if 41 1. f -4 / ' k \/ /Xtp:,1>~141ktirkxu r,m\*,11 it,irh,+ flt~t~r, 41Â·t~,?1 (T~ , t' t - i. i ' ILL, t- *n \-- 4414 - N 2 -f / .20, \ 4*0< 4 - 4/ -Â·i fl. :rwt; 2 . 1 1 .11.1,1 1: :1 1 92 - , I ' ./ lilli Hil:i: e HI i li~!1 tg i,< tuw ' \ JT- ' 1.11 ifflf /. 1 - r tl . B / fil I ]J iliD.'- . ' .' 1 Â· vÂ· ....11 ,/1 9 .::.......\Clrritit/421/4*rnm' 1 44/..... /3 1 1 -6 l ili J. 1 1 . G , '\\\ i \\\.Whe@11111~ - 11111~1, .~il[0~ - - A*rf#fle"-;&, 940 Â£ r -1 -1, \ J. i i 1 22-23 I . tut,GA 1 h. 1 6 - I- , 1 4 \ c , 'I t. - C-Â· 3 :,, , i. * .i t-rb-.1-i,/,--- -- h - - . .1 l .,e.J V c &7 - . 0 41 3 r.-; ,- . Â·- FL/- j.v -4.I. r . ~ . . ltd ----1 09 -. 9. c . -~~ L ' >-0 9#0 1 1 1/1. 1, 4%524 - - k, -[l 'jN'-1 - 0 â‚¬ .111. 1.151. 0 1 +0 - \ t / - 1 / A ' Â«L- , 1, . @AUen . --~ , 4. . , 4 - r i ' 1Â·1 +4(Gn-Aj < 1 ,- fl~F'IPT91Â¢ . - f - . 2-0 44#1 -./..\'. 7 42.- 44 1 f (77 121@L2,9, --1 -. 3 - 2 </ 4-141 ~ \\ .--:4-71 ...0 .iÂ·y- r' '.5 2 - / 6, Â». j. 10 *Ma, . - Â· dfirTL - - hrife - 4.h - 2.11 "ut6 ...1 .- -I,~,ZAEF|| c ~ ~ W @11 424 2 1 6-,fii, Â· 3- _----& , 1 b C , //'G#1//L,--- I F \\ . 1*!51 / 11 .t,4r-1 -- ..ue . A\ / X , I. 1 / 1 l~ ' ~ f. .. % ..0.: , Â¢\ f.11 1 4 - -- -- 1 - \ k. '- -f.tric r / - Â«955 .- 0 1 /4 :06 7 .'.. *- 4-/ , C'$21,EU - f â€¢ . / 1/ 4G-FOD#4 - - #148 Ely - : '*. I < . j . -1 , . 1 /4.- . .aL -1 3 M ingh ..4 U I.J. 5 41 4 . 1 - 1 n ' 61-TE jo L A N - o FT 104 -â‚¬ wn#ilmn#-E@~3 EmEN--43- ;'l 14 0 <f , . Imlf -- SCALE . 1 "= 50'- o" 1 -3 6 51 4 N ALTE,/2 NAT HE * C.-1 . 0 T . 1 hy<. - 13.0. r* L -: lilli , I i 1 1 ,il-1 .1..1 1. 1. 1,4 1 116 FLATE i fig'-ON - -B EIGEBB"'16 0 C J - Tll I " - u-- ~ 151.. FL==.==72- 'W 100'19,1 W B 4 -r ELEVATION -- 4,5,ALE 2 f/;6"= :Â·.Â£,n O 9-: ON - 1> -- / / - - 41 -\ , p-1 9 d.)-9 /.f â€ž1Â«x â‚¬~14< - f - - H %1-- / :6â€¢-twAY , 110 - U Mr--c-- -- --*-- - / 11\49 '4~97 1 - -- 1 \ .. 1-f 1.,4,1114-,1 1 1 .1 LÂ· - . 1 1 ,~ \</// .11\ '. e..22-LIO\\ OEO\*it\\'(\Th" trtÂ»Â·,:'rilttlpho-ff| , 01 L ./ . 0 ' 1 t' 'tinic. * 4 b Â· 4* RTT.v .M tulplit/ - a L E , itut/ '11" -1.-, "~f~t \> L~<1 44'fl ' U f C h i Po 4D ,Â·, I I .rks,<. I ..~1.:/.1/0 A .' y r t'~ ' iÂ¥ /5 - ~13, If . 1' 172 - 4*** fl i 6 i jj.] LI.[19.lul FIT 1 . -. 24,3-0440'~'~lk - 1\4-PL , & 1 1 ' 16 - .\ MINIV A f tr- 1.-4 ~-- 4-1 L ip -//9 1 /71 11!07 14-0 z rfllifeÂ·fr, 9/, . C.....1~ 9 -1 4 ./- 1 - 7 - illf'4Â·noll'11,12 ''' rb . NÂ»-<h , #441>'~4 1 , - -11.. - n-1- \ C - he- v c /12 . 2 644-- .i:19 1 L Â· Â·-<V- - t,tid'Atn,rk,4/ A i./. - 8 - -+ s *~n96 - -~- s A - - g l' 1 *h rtÂ·Iri 1411-TtO r v 1.1,~ 47. 1 42 ./. -li .14 - f /1 - - -- l, r.mÂ·rnmig~,r,.DfIEMIt- 'OMP 16 '46. . . ..1 4// c . <4- -.~--~< 4 3---Lâ€ž - ~ / 1,6- i lil i l 1 t 1 . . /1 , f ~ "7 : - 1 3 r:),4 1-\,/>\\ . f r X21 . ./Â·1 1 r.-h f â‚¬, 4 { ft\ \44 1....A . . . / 1 . . . 1..01\4â‚¬14 m.gk85--5\ 1 - , IRS-=21 0-- 1 , . 1 1 - - >14 1. 1-41711'TrA... lt, , r, 1 -'',-- -. 1 1 } \\--; lA/ ~ ~It, rtâ„¢*IBILÂ· p-7 - ' -- -C 1 , i~ 1 ' ''i ' 1. 2- :-1 , \ 4. , r ' ' -0 'I[lil L#fill ~ ~ C -Ch 2 ti. ' / I. 4 t. .4 r 1 : 8 & 1- Ijill. 9. r . U tw .7, C Â· . i - - ./1. , t C .-' 1 1 r 1 11ML I - : ' 33.11!I-_1.0-11.i 111 Imlm:.Prz.t PC34 - . 34 - - lul -- g 1 E 10 LA N - o r'Tiobl - 3 ;1 / ArA' m - 1,1 - c:-1 -0,1 I I n De=ns'U ACT-â‚¬Â£_N A-7-17 6 -ED " 1.0. IWOF Â»4:. ' ' -, f ~11111 --1-ITTE I 11 f'ZO'-CP' #1-' - 1 1 f -- .- i 0.Â¥Udt f 1 1 11 IIi ... Ll - . 1 1 - i I./P. -1 ; - - - --- _ ~ Urt-ER LEVEL 1 -=1=. FF 11 1 107'-O, I gRAPE - -.I--Ill----*.Ill - -- - 4 tooâ€¢ -oâ€¢ - 1 LowE" LEVEL 7 44'-oâ€¢ oFFI C E PLPG. BLOS- 17!AVE ;WA Y WEeT ELEVATIoN / - --- --- I- - . / A â€ž L EU i /'G" , i- O" , or-noe 4 - . / 3 . / / - & -' rT--11 ' --- - - 0 A -- 421 - %.3.- 1 - - i 1_11 14041 -A - HIGH W ' Y Ti-, I f, . -- c %21.- 9* Â·br < 1 Uy . IN \ ./1 1 1-----~ -11< 3/ . , , L . 1 6' d . . . 'c: , t'Â» orrk M , I, . f. 4/ f . ~ 77,47> 1 -- ./ r ni 11 1 , i Ax141.~f r 47/ 47.6 1 4- 3 1 j~ili 'i z v - Â· ,- p042< ,. f~AJ? IIi : \ . : -11 ''LI'lid,lf fort,4. Â· - r 1 0 Â· 3 /1 ./. 'i ~ . i \~ \4191 ~16 / 11\ - >. 1\4 -.& , 1 f /, rfi C (fvt-frl~~| . _ :ki--6 h)<V ' / I 1-17 <KÂ¢ .1 - /, 1 f=~ :-itÂ» ~ <1 1 / 42 .-3/ 1 . Â» n I r'U -04 r , r 9 4 4 . >,>#7'- 40%4wj'14- 4 h .- C , . h. -r ,-/ 2 424-41Â§~Nf - \<12- /1.. '...,. '. ,-*.- C.2..,3/ , 3<:., c - 53 - - - h - - - 0 -~~ f . 1 qud<951'rN'f~~~E 1.2. 4,7 11.1 -/1.4 f. , 10 411 0 - .lt I I ~ *4e--0 (4 + Â· 13-# 4 --lifITIFI. lin - 4 - - 24 - - I. W - - t j\ - - \>2 , â€¢ u AmmE -~ . Â· 3f 1 1 X d Â· L.. - 1 - ~ 1~ 1 t. -gÂ·-aM |-Â·POHP Ila , And h 1--4 2, Â«~44 Â· D .l Â· 1 0Â·Â· - 7' 1 ' -Â· 4! 1 - 1- 0 03 / 1/2 42 - 0, I - . I /7 .-itill)4: ..... - 4)*12--~ -i r' - - .1 2 r J .- r'N 3 f .-/ 6411 r . 14 . 20 - r . HIPIn . Imullill-Â· 7\. -. ..2-, I ..i . . ,\V '.4 r - Â·LIUUUÂ£lu'Â·.â€ž-,Ill:4 4 4 - - l/-4 42Â¢ '1~ ./ 4 Â· 1 42 6 4 A- 1 90(4 4mtâ€¢111\, 4 lilli ..7 . ,/Uply - C ~ . - \: - Â· r : r D z 4 6 44 .7 . .1 '*~5631 9 V" 2 -"47 . UWA 2 213. Â£ ..,{ \1141 -r<*MI / -3 P f.n . 4/0 . 1 \ .1 Â· 1 -- 1 (11, . ,- ,. A '' Â· . '<-- ... un// Ub \ , 'll :'Â· f 1/&}Mmit-- 1Â· . . , I *I Ate 99 , f t. ' ..â‚¬, -,lf .I 4 .. - n ., .. /,1 1 z MEK *FIC 62 4/ . 2*Â· A -.-- =01% P. , h .. i 4, f - .- -I - 11 '. 1. f . 3- - .. -- - -A . fÂ¥w *t Â· f - Pebbl VJ\46*If '' - . - I. 1 BIZ.1 064 hot 3 0 834 I \16 . I W -- 41 . C ; .. '' 0 1 TE_ PLAN - opTI,21Â·l-4 I 4mni-, mili~31. 4-- -41 /1 - Imlf - -: 1 , Â·Â· . 1 ; 10 -0 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CITY OF ASPEN PARKS AND GOLF MAINTENANCE FACILITY CONCEPTUAL PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, June 12, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the City of Aspen Parks Department, requesting Conceptual Submission approval of a Substantial Amendment to the Golf Course PUD to construct 9,000 square feet of additional storage space and 1,000 square feet of additional office space for the City of Aspen Parks and Golf Departments. The property is located at 585 Cemetery Lane; a portion of Lot 1, Golf Course Subdivision. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5101 s/John Bennett, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on May 27, 1995 City of Aspen Account 6- Fah C CULAL j 4 1 {1 ~ 9 9 *Al i i OYAe 1% L 2735-024.03-Out WORLD ti)UCATIONAL C[)11(jIC]L, LTD. 533 E. HOPKINS AVE. AbPEN Co 81611 THE CITY OF ASPEN 130 SOUTH G.ALENA STREF-1 ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 - UJ 2735-122-25-001 't' KMANIEK, JOYCE L. Â«~' 41 414 E. HYMAN ' / ASPtN, CO 81611 THE CHY OF ASPEN 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN. COLORADO 81611 C Â»P 41' T. .lk + .... j. 1 0 4t96 - A 1 . . â‚¬ H~At NTâ‚¬Al 4 NC_L- 4 AG ~PROPotâ‚¬ D BUIL-DING b i I (s IA)-re,2,62- B 6,2 M . 9. M ' 1 . 4 . \ O ..1 4. 11 . . i i & , -2. 11 '. W 4 ' Â·r ~ 44 . '-â€¢/0 1 - . 1' 4, ... 4. . Lalk-4 ail- 224 LANE- (mdeffey LAN E- tâ‚¬ A 70 50( 2 29 (2 x posu e- e 8 p If '':'Â· /:AA':iA.,i. GEM, . 4 3 F , 'Â· tâ€¢,t $4 1 1 0 .' i. ./ ' : I#- 1 ' 4 1, I 14 .,9 - Â¥ a. .,2 h. 4*Nb 1 Â· Â£ .:Ar- ... I , TABLI N# AGA ENTRANCE; P- 2-GrA CH[Al/0-reNAA)Ce C -664 6--re 2-y kA AJEs UNE; 4/ C L 6Â«j ..1 1, S' A .L"4~ Â«-m.lili' ~'~~ - Â·Â· ..4.9 .-.' ,-p . .9-5*,4, i.Â· , , , 1 4%,2 amt 'IMW " 1 1 . -4. 1 l--havtÂ©Ay 8 2 7 LAMP #0 Ul.66 (FORE# Rownb) Sx. PO b (4 256 + O Pi= 0 (L IE Â·5 bal.- P .'**3~~~*AM* r.44*444' .f & 4, 1.11,0 /i .. .-. *7~ 4 . , 16 - - . ..LI ' & W*. a-77) 9 Od )(2 (10-1/ yÂ© 4/.9 2 9Â¥lgod *9 992/ 7703 97 of) -3 no 0 d -9 0 63 L" 1 1.... I 115161 t. t 044'll# 1/I'll//6/'666,8- Ii#_ :f *!4. 4 ~ -03--4 .'f~..~ 211~dim,t~ 4 ~01-901*11~11/ - 4. . . 4/ + ./1 . Â¢ 1, 9 4 1:.L , . . 4144. /1. 4 I . it. 7,/., 1. f :--3 4 4 1 4- i f / '1 , C //4,~,1 t.' I - L, T< 7 . t, lh. .L. '1. , f. . I ..f , 3,> . I .'/.C. I .. 4..ift.. - mil , , , ' , 61 11" . 1. . I - * 4/ 4 3...A - ' S - . Â»~ , - , . p. lili .- 6 ./. - Lo UIER, fOR- /-on 4 A e cj .LÂ©03 E R-- 1,1 a 1 h' .6 - 1 /1 /2-.O ' U .6, <7 - 1 -11 +4 -T O l* 0 D UGGECT(opu yo m 9 T-- Â°Â£*ce- f - - -i- Ii. / , - / t. l.t cs â‚¬ s M 85 T 11 1 0.43 E d L. _ A- ' 1.: 1, Al) C A- T- 1 0 W -ZJ~31 - -7 # 2 /42--E-es tvo/5~6/2- *g~ ~<0~~-- ------- , i.--7-:. \ ' fll, ' '4-21't~ b . I- ------- - 24 - 9 0 7 2- E-S. â‚¬Â» T A Q â‚¬14 C 1 . u '' ,#Ne* 1 \1Â£///,,i:3~3%3,(1*\*.littliT*â€¢trI'llt,rtltlÂ·r,tfi~,~ d 3. /1 t._LO \W ) A- i_,- Fo 005 .# -/ . h. 44 TO 3 7Ay As 13 u 'ir Kâ‚¬ 1 , - -'-- 0 - LA"*Movrliflj~Si~\ 1 - 1*2 cr? r.&*. -ftlf"t. < 1 Â·Â·' -,,<;90...T , 4/ \ r , Â· 71 - Ill.:6Â·ij. ~ if- ~ 4 9 f 9 KE--Â£1-5 0 e 4-4 T--, 0 9 10â‚¬.GlÂ« * ** ~ ~,T~ vl - .tn 4 9/ r 11- 1 0 4'flill!::lif /1/. ./ 2 3//-1 jti-//'~ l'Y ,' FO R Â£20 0 V I ew < - -7-S SweetiE vis (4 /0 1(A ' . t. IN/St,-4, I 9 '1 , /9/2,4/ T 0 71 v le l e--w Â£a C r Â· Â·,ii . 11#14.01 , -lili--*/Â£ . =A '9* ~4/1 , . .- 4404,76,1<-1 ttiÂ«r' I~â‚¬'fY-+M-4 -~- \4 5 c- % 6 e.*itâ‚¬ r: r r . _-,f,Illk 'r u-z~, i 3 4. . - -1, 1 ' 9 - , f t Jf. .1,-4 . , 4kl % I - 4&1'(1&4621;140 .-3 - ' 40 4# * Â© 7 UitÂ·'*~t N -6,641 9 p (N M?j A ..3. b 494 . 7"3111"4 -- ,.D '1, -0-0>i 1 7-03Â«t lfL (0 - / V - 0 .2-1, 1 1 1 f . WEA 3 'Ti,\\ , 'r, , ., El 1'0b>*m.QI 1 115 'ImÂ¢ i * ~ lili i Â· i - . 1 1 â€¢ ' 1 I Lf lili 1 ..1 I l < g. -1- r ... ' 4 , â‚¬ . . -I F Â· 9. I ?:'P: 0.=~44-- Â«0, e -1, 1 , . ~t )67 . 9>411@34#:- - ' <-- ' 9%'clarta-12LLilll.0@112'12.1 06, i .- 90' - - Â· 6.1 * - 0 1-TE PLAN - trnif .CALE : 7. 50'.0Â« 1., 1 1 1014 Wifftam Sharp Box 8630 Aspen, CO 81612 916- 400 G (jÂ»1(9 3- 092Â»7% 977Â» nopt U,#16 9.--f 19 29Â»-9 /- zpby) 0-*PJO -pl- 'Â·-a~Â·y-rep 4-02 7.974 777I-77Â» - De.-1/ 7,-3D\~UQ,-92eogly: (.7-Un-/?PO.OW9-*9 _>r" r K -0 .1 -3 13Â»39)Â« 93.- irr.nt p -le y E +,-36 h ' 'Â«3~ 003 1 Q _ / iw.31*=1 . --- ---~â‚¬0 *Dj 9,9~-02~92pn ~Â·r, uq.9 02Â«D â‚¬tjâ‚¬ y-1 00 6/9 .li 1 09 1 $ 63 D -17 , -5-5-5- --0* i -*L-~~-0 0 : - rÂ·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·~ ~ <IJ~7 17<*4'~U t i ~ / 111 C.3 Chj /7% Cl'Cr -1 0, 0 1 r L j Clo L Z (-\-~~ fr rx r rtÂ» -3 1 LA.19 A 1& 16410 ~ 0461 <wl -y-,Ncyll - 497 - T hy.J 42 I -3- -900 Lil I .9, fl C Dfact-.14- 41* dito. F L j~ #hkqi*.au--Â¤7 U A ALL, 1 ; 0~42-4- 1 Â£ --73 oaaÂ»- HÂ·s~- - 0 Q.Gl,~ , 0 E Â©60 113- - 4-j Ynffu I fh .i 1/i Un - '~- tf327 2143-*rut~t 9000.-434 -/.A, - .LA 11 le A Le/C-4.0 4 -t~#19Â© fÂ°-x-Â£5 4 F. q a .n ~\ - Clirvt/<13 AAJV34 9 or-j-%04-j 71 6412.1 ee=& LE_, ~ 1- - 4 43>0 31;~11%u.Â«-1 641 fl D -4.44 ~ er# I 16 bef- G~Ol*(>LE) _ 1 - ke- blw_24 5Â¥5~C-~46 L.604 293-2 - GyÂ·Â» c,c,-~pt Lu,60 6-6 i fpl-NU 1 B en_*u-Â»St safO=- 02_*-/ 2.. kul-A a-~8-ufd~ , ~32,4- 1DTuf 9 *49-9 49 545 9 actâ‚¬ 16 LOO-UL /Â£*L -*i ."nol 1 '1 dl&2-Pt- ~L-::$ u_p 09 4. 41 Â« piops*t/folor-Â« i - 064 ~rtÂ¥) ----frffrif~to ~~pit~ 1 Â«4*144 luet BuxtÂ« )- \_23 (b- hk &Â«; ~Â«bld) , Yci-4 4 Â»Â»nce, ,)Â«4651 4Â· i /24454#A #4 40_* 6&,joy#n~caa.02(12/fEA3_ 1 ' r 111 .~I . C Velit- _0~93St C 4-ta ULO -ef~/ - _ ~Lon--Vl,.Â© *_Lib Luf- *Uk(-4 02_64 4-4 4 UNIÂ» 4 142 lato_fas- Châ‚¬ iÂ«-4 31-_ 24,4 - oR--4-e c 04144Â»q hi< 4 6Â£ luot _4 *pÂ»t jÂ» < -2,444 L-- ___ 123#~11_Â»U -__399,__~L_OYâ‚¬G-0 14.- '1(23,/ \t tuf _L~%40 _colh,J_-46 It e l,. 01 CDÂ«~L. Ct- -k'.0/1 4 j (-1 %-0 /X -9 .4.1...6--bo ef)-t-.-â‚¬3- cKY Â·râ‚¬le - t 11 ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5439 MEMORANDUM TO: City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Aspen Fire Protection District PPRG FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: City of Aspen Parks & Golf Maintenance Facility PUD Substantial Amendment, Conceptual Development Plan, GMQS Exemption & Conditional Use Review Parcel ID No. 2735-111-09-001 DATE: March 22, 1995 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by the City of Aspen Parks Department. Please return your comments to me no later than April 12. Thank you. ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 FAX# (303) 920-5439 March 22, 1995 Glenn Rappaport Black Shack Studio Box 276 Aspen, CO 81612 Re: City of Aspen Parks & Golf Maintenance Facility PUD Substantial Amendment, Conceptual Development Plan, GMQS Exemption & Conditional Use Review Case A33-95 Dear Glenn, The Community Development Department has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that this application is complete. We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a Public Hearing to be held on Tuesday, May 2, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. We have also scheduled this application for 1st Reading before the Aspen City Council on Monday, May 22, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p. m. Should these dates be inconvenient for you please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda dates will be considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting dates, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Community Development Department. Please note that it is your responsibility to mail notice to property owners within 300' and to post the subject property with a sign at least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing. Please submit a photograph of the posted sign as proof of posting and an affidavit as proof of mailing prior to the public hearing. If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont the planner assigned to your case, at 920- 5101. Sincerely, 54441 SuzannA L. Wolff Administrative Assistant CC: George Robinson & Rebecca Baker . r PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CITY OF ASPEN PARKS AND GOLF MAINTENANCE FACILITY CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PUD SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, GMQS EXEMPTION & CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 2, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the City of Aspen Parks Department, requesting Conceptual Submission approval of a Substantial Amendment to the Golf Course PUD to construct 9,000 square feet of additional storage space and 1,000 square feet of additional office space for the City of Aspen Parks and Golf Departments; Conditional Use Review approval for a park maintenance building in the Park (P) zone district; and GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facilities. The property is located at 585 Cemetery Lane; a portion of Lot 1, Golf Course Subdivision. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5101 s/Bruce Kerr, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 15, 1995 City of Aspen Account 44 \ 2735-122-25-001 KRAMER, JOYCE E. 414 E. HYriAr' AbPEN, CO 81611 THE CITY OF ASPEN 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 Ai -#.261,Pit:f, 41:1- , Aji B,4.-;*Uki - A. 2735-024-03-001 WORLD EUUCATIONAL COUNCIL, Liu. 533 E. HOPKINS AVE. AoPEN Co 81(11 THE CITY OF ASPEN 130 Soul'H GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLOR.ADO 81611 ATTEMPT#rn 1\4) f ri'Nat,~fh urk.J Â«li~ NO MA/L Â¥-,0 8.ND'. RECEPTA Â· 27-15-122-09-028 DUERKoE,v, FRANKLIN K MA'?GARET TRUbl c 801 BONITA Dk AbPEN Cu 81611 THE CITY OF ASPEN 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5439 MEMORANDUM f City Engineer Housing Director Aspen Water Department Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Aspen Fire Protection District PPRG 7-3 Y --ritt,IVI: Leslie Lamont, Planner RE: City of Aspen Parks & Golf Maintenance Facility PUD Substantial Amendment, Conceptual Development Plan, GMQS Exemption & Conditional Use Review Parcel ID No. 2735-111-09-001 DATE: March 22, 1995 Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by the City of Aspen Parks Department. Please return your comments to me no later than April 12. Thank you. Nf PUBLIC NOTICE RE: CITY OF ASPEN PARKS AND GOLF MAINTENANCE FACILITY CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PUD SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, GMQS EXEMPTION & CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 2, 1995 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the City of Aspen Parks Department, requesting Conceptual Submission approval of a Substantial Amendment to the Golf Course PUD to construct 9,000 square feet of additional storage space and 1,000 square feet of additional office space for the City of Aspen Parks and Golf Departments; Conditional Use Review approval for a park maintenance building in the Park (P) zone district; and GMQS Exemption for Essential Public Facilities. The property is located at 585 Cemetery Lane; a portion of Lot 1, Golf Course Subdivision. For further information, contact Leslie Lamont at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920-5101 s/Bruce Kerr, Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on April 15, 1995 City of Aspen Account ft 98 2 1 %\ f < APR 1 0 1995 ~ $ Dev'El.,2?PMEN F / UÂ¥ Ufft Of'l Vlb MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council 4)66 THRU: Bill Efting, Acting City Manager THRU: Stan ClausonÂ·/76mmunity Development Director 6/ FROM: Leslie Lamont, Deputy Planning Director DATE: March 27, 1995 RE: Consent Agenda - Permission for the Parks Department to Submit an Application for an Amendment to the Parks Planned Unit Development Approval to Expand their Office and Maintenance Facility SUMMARY: The Parks Department is preparing to submit a development application to substantially amend the PUD approval for the Golf Course to expand their office and storage/maintenance facility. Before the Department can submit the land use application requesting the amendment, Council must first grant permission to file an application for City owned property. The Parks Department has been extensively planning a remodel and expansion for their functions. Consent to submit an application does not imply an approval for the project. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to direct the City Manager to grant permission for the Parks Department to submit an application to amend the Golf Course PUD to expand their facility." CITY MANAGER'S APPROVAL: