The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.apz.20140715 1 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TUESDAY, July 15, 2014 REGULAR MEETING: 4:30 p.m. Sister Cities room 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC HEARINGS — A) 320 Midland Ave. —Residential Design Standards Variance B) Rubey Park Remodel —Planned Development Amendment VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest(handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice(affidavit of notice for PI) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of hearing 10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met. Revised April 2, 2014 TO: MEIITORANDUM P1 • Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: nici Sara Nadolny, Planning Tech THRU: an Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Communi MEETING DATE: ty Develo July 15, 2014 Ament Director RE: 320 Midland Ave. — APPLICANT/OWNER: RDS Variance .Request Pro Request properties, LLC SUMMARY: The Applicant REPRESENTATIVE: Commission a requests the Planning Mitch Haas, Haas Land from the PProve the g and Zoning Use Plan Residential application for a variance Planning lines. A variance Design Standard LOCATION: will allow for build-to Lot 1 proposed building he Applicant to East Meadow Property approximately 50 Place the Subdivision, Y line, rather than � back from the commonly known as 320 fagade within 5' maintaining 60% of the front Ave. Midland the of the front C Property line, as required by Code. or 30' from CURRENT ZONING& USE STAFF RECO This propel ty is Staff �NDATION: Moderate-D located in the recommends ensity Residential Residential D denial °f the 15A) zone district. (R- Design Standard application for currently he esign _ Build-to Variance regarding y vacant. lot is Lines, g Site PROPOSED LAND USE. �. The Applicant is construct a prOp°Sig to J single fa the site. lY residence on Figure A:Image of subject propert Y as seen from Smuggler Grove. 1 r� 'r �� • i L� sj r. P2 The BA 111 eK site is located subject residential Y the R-15A in the East e distrc , zone it Subdivision, Meadow designated w; n ►. ^' ,'' outside of Inc The Aspen I,,fill Area. 49 sq total lot size is 9,8 _ t> _ • �'� is currently f k; ft., and The parcel sits '•' , _ t vacant• streets adjacent to ' three , � , ,,� •: to the Mascotte Ln• to Mi to north, Midland Ave., Smuggler . the west, and south. to the 14 Grove Rd is a Grove Smuggler An ; private street. Administrative retation was issued S I1lterp 27, 2013 on September _ ler Smugg Hated - ,� • that designated Grove as the front of the y parcel. Figure :Vicinity Map licant is requesting the OCEDURES: The App gEVIEw PR ssion: and Zoning COQ Code Section LAND USE REQSovals from the Planning pursuant to Land Use ranted by the land use app Standards Varian r- P to be following Desi n n Standards maY e g Residential the Residential Desig following criteria is found V arianceS from o f the two 26.410.020.D ission if one planning and Zoning Comm of development n or pattern the met: ro riate desig proposed and will provide an app p development is 1. The variance context in which the specific related considering the articular standard, or to unusual site- purpose of the p for reasons of fairness 2 Is clearly necessary for the constraints. Standards review Residential Design a variance from the wired to undergo Applicant 's requesting application is required home• The App This app new single family 000) square feet, at construction of a Standard. thousand (15,0 e (5) feet of the Residential Design o parcels or lots of less than f,fteen within minimum following front facade shall be 15 zone district the m1 Build-to Line ercent (60%) of the in the R- least sixty p For reference, minimum front yard setback line. 2 P3 front yard setback line is 25', so 60% of the front fagade is required to be within 30' of the property line. STAFF CONMENTS: The Residential Design Standards were created to preserve established neighborhood scale and character and to ensure Aspen's neighborhoods are public places conducive to walking. The purpose of this specific standard is to encourage a relationship between development and the street. Locating buildings significantly farther back on the site than permitted by the Code diminishes the relationship between the building and the street, and detracts from the pedestrian experience. The subject parcel is a flat, vacant lot. There are seven other lots along Smuggler Grove Rd. with building dates ranging from 1894 - 2007 (Exhibit C-1). Neighboring properties 63 and 73 Smuggler Grove Rd. are the only residences constructed after the standard's 2005 adoption into the Code. At 63 Smuggler Grove an administrative request for a variance related to the build-to line was denied, and the current residence meets the standard. At 73 Smuggler Grove the building received a variance from the front set-back standard (per Resolution No. 3, Series of 2002) from the Board of Adjustment, permitting this residence to be situated closer to the street than would normally be allowed, despite Staff's recommendation of denial. The majority of the remaining residences that were constructed prior to the adoption of the standard vary in setback measurements. However, the redevelopment of any of these residences will require the same Residential Design Review, with the expectation that the redevelopment will meet this standard. The Applicant has indicated that the trees at the front of the property might create a hardship requiring the proposed building to be set back further than allowed by 'r Code in order for the trees to be �<< maintained on the site. The Parks Dept. has performed a site visit and has found a number of these trees to be damaged or diseased (see Exhibit D, Parks Dept. Referral). None of these are heritage trees that would require being maintained on-site. A number of these trees may require removal in the near future. Furthermore, it is possible to meet the building siting standard while maintaining the majority of these trees on-site. Staff does not find any condition associated with the Figure C:Image of subject site as viewed from rear of property property that would require the granting of a variance due to a site-specific constraint. 3 s ' P4 achieved. Staff s goal is to reduce the existing number of non-conformities throughout the City, and new development provides the opportunity for this to occur. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a Residential Design Standard Variance at this location, finding the criteria for a variance to not be met. RECOMMENDED MOTION (This Resolution is written in the affirmative): If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to approve for the requests,they may use this motion: "I move to approve the request for the Residential Design Standard Variance Review for 320 Midland Ave." If a Resolution is passed denying the request minor changes to the Resolution are required. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A— Site Plan Exhibit B— RDS Variance—Review Criteria Exhibit C— Neighborhood Images Exhibit D— Parks Dept. Referral Exhibit E— Application Exhibit F— Public Notice 4 y P5 RESOLUTION No._ (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM A RESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARD FOR LOT 1 OF THE EAST MEADOWS SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 320 MIDLAND AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. Parcel Identification Number: 2737-181-06-001 WHEREAS, HTM Properties, LLC submitted a request for a Residential Design Standard Variance to the Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, the property is located in the Moderate-Density Residential (R-15) zone district; and WHEREAS,upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended denial of the Residential Design Standard Variance; and WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on July 15, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, upon review and consideration of the recommendation of the Community Development Department, presentation from the Applicant, and consideration of the proposal, approves the review as outlined in this resolution; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable development standards to meet the criteria for granting a Residential Design Standard Variance, and approves this application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Planning and Zoning Commission approves the request for a Variance from the Residential Design Standard found at Section 26.410.040.D — Build-to lines, which states, "On parcels or lots of less than fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, at least sixty percent (60%) of the front fagade shall be within five (5) feet of the minimum front yard setback line..." The variance will permit the Applicant to locate the residential unit approximately 52'from the minimum front property line, as shown in Exhibit A. 1 P6 Section 2• This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 15th day of July, 2014. LJ Erspamer, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deb Quinn,Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Cindy HIob,Records Manager Attachment: Exhibit A- Site Plan 2 Resolution Exhib4-,x Site Plan pd MASC07TE LANE • S81 30 00l: 88.00+ KMM • • • • • I soa� z • , rose • • +x n LLiJ • fn o se { • a e � m o • • wr(�f y �• iY � A .. N a Y IE1.NE 71SE • M79 41 QQ W a 11 79.0(y A. ML ••+M•,W m Will uu a e fo u m fnr.r-v rue "+ve w¢ sMU�GLER +•�c� M GROW RO A0 aru a +arra u+mm as RL1e3 a Y 1QlAL Iflply Q.¢ ie�i:iair�:ian na �aar +m SCH-1 g WALKER DESIGN SERVICES 970-379-3636 Exhibit A P8 Site Plan MASCOTTE LANE D4 •� S81 30 00E ♦ OT • y K I W E % 1 • CMUM • • tD�ot • • Q • D J Ile EB Q N tlf N • ma • z �L fAaff DDRgI � lcv the nrec 16+ i � • ar po y f• • m a Y � Y♦� A y � a y • Y �i6 N IW AF 116E • C3 • i A 4: QJ N79 41 OOW fun tna nan 1m tnartxlas.us/oear,®w� S1014M•ME. A4Ol CD ilgl fMt ■ ms tss•ctrn-• g MVGGLER GROVE ROAD .1u ir ualr,n.s �.Df o>u ,6fa M1a.m aDD s DtpB 0 g MK Illllam 6]D ti 1DD0 4' 1.OMa''a 1T.,6i1 "°°'° SCH-1 Q.os a leoD.]14 WALKER DESIGN SERVICES 970-379-3636 9 4 P9 Exhibit B Review Criteria Section 26.410.020.D.2 Variances from the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.410.040, which do not meet this Section may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Historic Preservation Commission, if the project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 26.415. An applicant who desires to consolidate other requisite land use review by the Historic Preservation Commission, the Board of Adjustment or the Planning and Zoning Commission may elect to have the variance application decided by the board or commission reviewing the other land use application. An applicant who desires a variance from the Residential Design Standards shall demonstrate and the deciding board shall find that the variance, if granted would: a) Provide an appropriate design or pattern of development considering the context in which the development is proposed and the purpose of the particular standard. In evaluating the context as it is used in the criteria, the reviewing board may consider the relationship of the proposed development with adjacent structures, the immediate neighborhood setting or a broader vicinity as the board feels is necessary to determine if the exception is warranted; or Staff Response: The purpose of the standard is to encourage development that addresses the street in a manner that serves to establish the neighborhood scale and promotes a favorable pedestrian environment. Locating the development significantly farther back on the site than permitted by the Code diminishes the relationship between the building and the street, and detracts from the pedestrian experience. The subject parcel is a corner lot, currently vacant, and the proposed development will be the first residential unit on the north side of Smuggler Grove Rd. There are 7 other lots along this street, with building dates ranging from 1894 — 2007. Within this subdivision 7 of the 8 total lots are parcels measuring less than 15,000 sq.ft. Many of the existing homes on these lots do not adhere to the build-to line standard, however, these were built prior to the adoption of the residential design standard. The redevelopment of any of these existing residences will require the same Residential Design Review, with the expectation that any redesigns will meet this standard. As a rule, Staff feels that when the RDS is able to be accomplished the design should reflect this. Staff does not recommend the granting of a variance when the Residential Design Standard is able to be achieved. Staff's goal is to reduce the existing number of non-conformities throughout the City, and this new development provides the opportunity for this to occur. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. b) Be clearly necessary for reasons of fairness related to unusual site-specific constraints. Staff Response: The subject parcel is a flat, standard rectangular site measuring 9,849 sq.ft. in size. The Applicant has expressed interest in siting the proposed development approximately 27' back from the minimum front yard setback line of 25' in order to 1 - { P10 maintain the trees in the front yard. According to the standard, at least 60% of the residence should be located within S' of the minimum front yard setback line. The City's Parks Dept. was consulted for an opinion on maintaining the trees along Smuggler Grove. Parks Staff did not find any trees in this area that met the size of a heritage tree, which must be maintained on-site. Furthermore, Parks Staff commented on a fair number of trees in this area that have been damaged and may need removal in the near future. Staff does not find any unusual site-specific constraints that would obligate the granting of a variance. Staff finds this criterion to not be met. 2 P11 Exhibit C-1 — Neighborhood Images 9 '1 4SCOi i E LN 6 6 - -Wool, 1 [11967/1968 1965/1967 rb 2007 'a EU1 lw+l+9,�Wr�,�OW a R-1 SA { f 1 V 1976 El 967/1968 � � '��.k�7! yr" �► f! ,i Smuggler Grove Rd lots referencing years of building construction. P T� OA .• oil Nis Y s S� B hlt ryl4' .lo►�'�' 1 .4333'i 1 P13 43 Smuggler Grove Constructed 1965/1967 5k. f: 63 Smuggler Grove �a Constructed 2007 = N. $ j s 1 2 �ry - i _ _ r �.s ANN— to r zi P16 Exhibit D Parks Dept. Referral In regards to the trees on the property at 320 Midland, the applicant must submit a tree removal permit to the Parks Department along with a detailed map showing which trees they would like to remove (identifying the trees with tape in the field would also help). Once submitted, the City Forester will go out to the property and inspect the trees and make a decision as to whether or not there will be any mitigation required. As you are aware, Ben Carlsen is our new Forester who will be making the determination regarding the outcome of this request. Mitch Hass is correct in the assumption that the Parks Department would like to preserve the trees on this property and that mitigation may be required for any conifers (pine or spruce) that exceeds 4 inches in diameter as well as any deciduous (trees with leaves) trees that have a diameter greater than 6 inches. I am not certain if there is any native material (choke cherry or gambel oak, for example) on this property, but if there is, the diameter is 3 inches for their removal.The applicant does not need to mitigate or even need a tree removal permit for any trees or native material that does not meet our code requirements. If you need further clarification or would like me to expound more, please do not hesitate to ask. David Radeck, Project Technician, Parks Department As it pertains to Mitch's comments about 'Parks wanting to preserve trees where we can', I want to make sure that everyone understands that we strive to preserve trees appropriate for preservation. There are several trees on this property with various issues such as insect/disease, mechanical wounds, root issues, etc. There are also trees on this site without any of these obvious conditions. Just because a tree has one or more of these types of issues, doesn't mean it can't survive and do well for years to come. There are uncertainties of tree longevity based upon cultural, mechanical, and environmental fluctuations on the site, and for these reasons, it doesn't always make sense to tell someone to redesign their home or ask for variances based upon trees with various defects. Tree preservation must be based upon the current and future condition of the site, not just the current condition of individual trees. As for mitigation dollars owed, this will be based upon the City Forester's evaluation onsite once the applicant has submitted a tree removal permit application, as Dave stated in his response. - Chris Forman, Parks Operations Manager, Parks Department FP17 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 1 �Ila- 1f-: 09,V,% , 2014- STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the ity of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in. the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters.not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the _ day of , 20_, to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sib z) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to, the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail �o all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and go>>ernmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the Method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued orz next page) P18 Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty(30) days prior to.the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on,the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and. new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text,amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient. legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection;yin the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signa e - The foregoing"Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 26 day of , 20(4 by .,e�v► v- °"1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL PUBLIC NOTICE RE:320 MIDLAND AVE- 7,,T - RESIDENTIAL DESIGN VARIANCE.REQUEST - My Commission expires: -;t9 t_ 6,56p_ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing r - will be held o Tuesday,July 15,2014,at a meet- ing to begin at t 4:30 p.m.before the Planni ng and Zoning Commission,Sister Cities Room,City Hall, 130 S.Galena St.,Aspen,to consider an applica- tion submitted by HTM Properties,LLC,of 10200 Notary Public Stone Briar,Las Vegas,NV 89144,for the proper- - ty located at 320 Midland Ave,represented by Haas Land Planning,LLC.The applicant is re- questing a Residential Design Standard Variance related to Site Design-Build-to lines.The property is legally described as Lot 1,East Meadows Subdi- vision,Parcel ID 2737-181-06-001. For further in- formation,contact Sara Nadoiny at the City of As- pen Community Development Department,130 S. Galena St.,Aspen,CO,(970)429.2739,sara.nad- o@cilvofasoen.com. ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: st LJ Erspamer,Chair PUBLICATION Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission - Published in the Aspen Times on June 26,20,4 I OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) c,o3os7sz) rvr 1 n OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL a APPLICANT CERTIFICA_TIONOFMINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 P19 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E),ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: :jo m a A-1� V G. Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 20 Id �5 'El' STATE OF COLORADO ) JUL 10 2014 ss. C1 1-Y Or ASPEN County of Pitkin ) ;"f y IMP Y .►l-LOPWN I, G (name, please print) being or representi g an App icant to the City of Asp&, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. ✓ Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty-two (22) inches wide and twenty-six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen(15) days prior to the public hearing on the day of J j,+✓? , 20J to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. Neighborhood Outreach: Applicant attests that neighborhood outreach, summarized and attached, was conducted prior to the first public hearing as required in Section 26.304.035, Neighborhood Outreach. A copy of the neighborhood outreach summary, including the method of public notification and a copy of any documentation that was presented to the public is attached hereto. (continued on next page) P20 Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions, SPAS or PUDs that create more than one lot, new Planned Unit Developments, and new Specially Planned Areas, are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The foregoing"Affidavit of Notic "was acknowledged before me this iQ day of 20 , by WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL • My is 'fin e pires: CHRISTOPHER LUNDGREN NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO o a h NOTARY ID 20144000722 COMMISSION EXPIRES JAN.09,2018 ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: • COPYOFTHEPUBLICATION • PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE(SIGN) • LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BYMAIL • APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 i P21 PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 320 midland Ave—residential design variance request NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 15, 2014, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Planning and Zoning Commission, Sister Cities Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St.,Aspen, to consider an application submitted by HTM Properties, LLC, of 10200 Stone Briar, Las Vegas, NV 89144, for the property located at 320 Midland Ave, represented by Haas Land Planning, LLC. The applicant is requesting a Residential Design Standard Variance related to Site Design—Build-to lines. The property is legally described as Lot 1, East Meadows Subdivision, Parcel ID 2737-181-06-001. For fiarther information, contact Sara Nadolny at the City of Aspen Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St.,Aspen, CO, (970)429.2739, sara.i_ lLdolnv @ci ofaspen.com. s/L�J Erspamer,Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Published in the Aspen Times on June 26,2014 City of Aspen Account z 4 wr R y. • • . 1 e Y:.� ty• � '�,�, FRf._� .. 1 :. • ,Y..� t' .ice - � r •'� �♦ ' J,, Jr� ` 1ij; r° ^�� `'y .�. �,1f r •` y,.w-A 3� 'r1 :��i • f� ('` � •' f ! +� �� •, ��I�►�• � �1.Teri,,. �.. %.k*A Iiw- IAL ALA— r 1207 EAST HOPKINS HOLDINGS LLC 404 PARK AVENUE LLC AMES MARTHA E PZ3 400 E MAIN ST 132 W MAIN ST#C 23 SMUGGLER GROVE RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ARNAL ALVARO JOSE ASPEN ASSET LLC BAKKEN JOHN &LIZA N 326 MIDLAND AVE#201 2701 MIDLAND AVE#8312 PO BOX 12064 ASPEN, CO 81611 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 816014395 ASPEN, CO 81612 BENNETT NEIL J BESTIC JEFFREY B BEYER ALAN R 214 PARK AV 301 MIDLAND PARK AVE 410 N MILL ST #B11 ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 2267 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BIBBIG DIETER BIRACH KAREN BIRRFELDER BRIGITTE T 333 PARK AVE 122 MIDLAND PARK PL PO BOX 3035 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-2414 ASPEN, CO 81612 BLOMQUIST JENIFER L&PERLEY PAUL BOLERJACK LISA BROOKS KERRI L PO BOX 12155 PO BOX 811 112 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 BROWN DONALD BROWN DOUGLAS&ABBY FAM TRUST BROWN RUTH H 412 KATHRYNS WY 11990 SAN VICENTE BLVD#200 410 N MILL ST#1311 ASPEN, CO 81611-2405 BRENTWOOD, CA 94513 ASPEN, CO 81611 BUCKLEY BETTY JEAN TRUST CALK LAURA E CANTRELL WESLEY R 364 W 3900 N WILLCOX DENNIS 104 KATHRYNS WY PROVO, UT 846044983 722 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81611-2405 ASPEN, CO 81611-2472 CARLSON ERIC& LYNNE CASTLE CREEK HOLDINGS CO CAVE DERYK 24 HIDDEN BROOK DR PO BOX 56109 1195 E COOPER#B BARRINGTON, IL 60010 HOUSTON,TX 77256 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHAUNER RONALD M CHAZEN DAVID FRANKLIN II CITY OF ASPEN CHAUNER JACKIE L SHEFFER 150 E 58TH ST 27TH FL 130 S GALENA ST PO BOX 8782 NEW YORK, NY 10155 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 COERDT CLINTON CLAUSS CONANT RICHARD H CORBIN MARCIA A 326 MIDLAND AVE#201 55 SMUGGLER GROVE PO BOX 9312 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 NNIN( F?AfO PAMELA M CURRAN MICHAEL FRANCIS DEELGUEA ALEJANDRO ORTIZ EL MONTE PO BOX 9871 2207 D !MIDLAND PARK PL PEN, CO 81611 HOUSTON,TX 77019 ASPEN, CO 81612 JEAN FELIX A III&CAROLYNE DELYNN JEAN J DEVANNY EARL H III&ELIZABETH H i8 KATHERINE DR C/O STOVROFF&TAYLOR TRAVEL 177 HARBO 80218 ELOUSAS,LA 70570 1127 WEHRLE BUFFALO, NY 14221 1DINGTON SUSAN M DOYLE JOHN F&LAURIE FRAMPTON D245 N CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY STE 460 AS 1 MIDLAND PARK PL BOX 12236 PEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 881 1612 DALLAS,TX 75205 A CHARLES S EPSTEN BRADFORD M QPR TRUST EST WY )8 E HOPKINS 1030 W 66TH TERRACE ASPEN, CO 81611-2405 PEN, CO 81611 KANSAS CITY, MO 64113 FLUG MARTIN FORNELL PETER J 3 MID LAND AVE#307 MARY SANDRA 616 E HYMAN AVE 402 MIDLAND PARK PL 3 MID PEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ANZE MARTIN JOSEPH FUENTES DAVID& KATHARINE D G 0 M SARA B PARK PL AS E COOPER AVE STE 210 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81611 PEN, CO 816113824 ASPEN, CO 81611 AMY GLICK DANIEL GOLDEN SALLIE .E EASON SON JOHN PO BOX 9910 325 PARK AVE 2 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ;PEN, CO 81611 )ODMAN DREW I GORBITZ HEIDI & PATRIC GREENHILL MICHAEL LOUIS TRUSTEE 21 GREEN OAKS DR PO BOX 647 GREENHILL DEBRA MERLE TRUSTEE 30 RIPARIAN RD ZEENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80121-1336 ASPEN, CO 81612 HIGHLAND PARK, IL 60035-1909 GROSZ COLLEEN A TRUST GRUBBS MATT ZIFFITHS THOMAS W 333 MIDLAND AVE#3 CHI 4 MIDLAND PARK PL N HARBOR #3612 ASPEN, CO 81611-2412 ,PEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 606600 1 JGLIELMO KNANSEE L HACH STEPHEN C HAGEN CATHERINE ANNE 4 CO THRYNS WY 23 SMUGGLER GROVE RD 210 MIDLAND PARK PL 4 KA KA 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HANSEN BETH HECK JAMES C HEMMING GREGG S & KAREN S P25 PO BOX 1775 PO BOX 8416 311 MIDLAND AVE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 HERMELIN ASPEN LLC HEYMAN BRUCE QPR TRUST 50% HEYMAN VICKI QPR TRUST 50% 32205 BINGHAM RD PO BOX 5000 2035 N MAGNOLIA FRANKLIN, MI 48025 MS-10 CHICAGO, IL 60614 OGDENSBURG, NY 13669 HIGGINS PAUL HITCHCOCK SAMANTHA HOUBEN CYNTHIA MICHELE 303 MIDLAND PARK PL#C-3 PO BOX 329 PO BOX 9616 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 HTM PROPERTIES LLC HUMPHREY JESS IBARA RON 10200 STONE BRIAR PO BOX 1775 PO BOX 776 LAS VEGAS, NV 89144 ASPEN, CO 81612 CAYUCOS, CA 93430 JEFFERSON GREG JOHNSON SHAEL JOHNSTON PEGGY REVOCABLE TRUST 711 MIDLAND PARK PL PO BOX 3549 111 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 K&W PROPERTIES I LLC KALTENBOCK ERNST KEARN ROBERT&ORENE FAMILY TRUST PO BOX 744 1612 WOODBINE HEIGHTS BLVD 1831 WILLOW RD BLACKSBURG,VA 24060 TORONTO ONTARIO HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010 CANADA M413 3A4, KNUTSON RODNEY D KOCH KATHRYN S&JOHN F KOLBERG JUDITH A PO BOX YY 304 MIDLAND PARK PL C-4 501 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LACROIX TIMOTHY LAFOUNTAINE ANTOINETTE LAUGHREN DAVID 113 MIDLAND PARK PL 410 KATHRYNS WY #D1 PO BOX 1265 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEE JONATHAN O TRUST LEE QUINCY J LEVENTHAL ROBERT B 35 FISHER AVE 610 W 5TH#600 515 KATHRYNS WY BROOKLINE, MA 02445 AUSTIN, TX 78701 ASPEN, CO 81611-2405 LEVIN AMY MACCRACKEN SCOTT R& MARISA POST MCDONALD FRANCIS B 811 MIDLAND PARK PL#H11 403 MIDLAND PARK PL#D3 PO BOX 4671 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 :GAV0*ARGARET MCPHEE JAMES MICHAEL&ANNE MARIE MCPHERSON GREGORY J 3ERT ELIZABETH A 401 MIDLAND PARK PL PO BOX 2073 BOX 533 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN,CO 81612 PEN, CO 81612 :BEL GREGORY E MG DUPLEX LLC MOHWINKEL CLIFF KUPONO ST 825 W NORTH ST PO BOX 9457 IA, HI 967799723 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 )ONEY TIMOTHY NEMIROW JORDAN NICHOLS SCOTT A BOX 8931 PO BOX 559 PO BOX 3035 PEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN,CO 81612 DFIELD BARNEY F PAGEWOOD LLC PATTEN DAVID N 31 MIDLAND AVE#8312 1301 MCKINNEY#3175 810 MIDLAND PARK PL .ENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 816014395 HOUSTON,TX 77010 ASPEN,CO 81611 IILLIPS ARTHUR R&HELEN B PITKIN COUNTY REDMOND JOHN B& LYNN G BOX 8245 530 E MAIN ST#302 207 KATHRYNS WY#133 -PEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 :YNOLDS LORA D ROCKY MTN PROPERTY LLC SAMUELSON ALIX 0 W 5TH#600 73 SMUGGLER GROVE RD PO BOX 4324 ISTIN, TX 78701 ASPEN,CO 81611 BASALT, CO 81621 :ARLETT ROBIN SELINKO VERA L SEMPLE SASHA L 3 KATHRYNS WY 2207 DEL MONTE 601 E HYMAN AVE :PEN, CO 81611-2405 HOUSTON,TX 77019 ASPEN, CO 81611 VIMONS SUSAN SMITH DONALD NELSON SMITH JACK L&DIANE M 1 KATHRYNS WY 501 MIDLAND PARK PL 434 COTTONWOOD DR ;PEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 EVERGREEN, CO 80439 JELL NANCY L SNYDER CONDO ASSOC SPONAR ANTON K&JUDY ) BOX YY 600 KATHRYNS WAY 222 MIDLAND PARK PL 'PEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611-2486 'EAR RONALD A& MARIA F STEIN DEBORAH STOVROFF JOAN C 1 MIDLAND PARK PL#A21 710 MIDLAND PARK PL C/O STOVROFF&TAYLOR TRAVEL 1127 WEHRLE OPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 BUFFALO, NY 14221 t SWIFT LAWRENCE V TAYLOR JACQUELINE W TERKUN MARK P27 DALY JACQUELINE A 1127 WEHRLE PO BOX 329 PO BOX 1313 BUFFALO, NY 14221 ASPEN, CO 81612 BASALT,CO 81621 VICENZI HEATHER L TRUST WEBSTER DAVID H WELDEN TODD E& DEBORAH C PO BOX 2238 PO BOX 10362 503 MIDLAND PARK PL#E3 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 WELLS SHARON ELIZABETH WHITE WILLIAM P WILSON KIMBERLY 338 MIDLAND AVEW 326 MIDLAND AVE#204 102 KATHRYNS WAY#A2 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 WINKLER JILL C 212 MIDLAND PARK PL ASPEN, CO 81611 P28 Exhibit G ADDENDUM TO MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Sara Nadolny,Planning Technician MEETING DATE: July 15,2014 RE: 320 Midland Ave.—RDS Variance Request On July 10, 2014 the Mitch Haas submitted a minor change in plans related to the site design of the proposed residence at 320 Midland Ave. Drawings for these plans follow this summary. The issue remains unchanged in that the Applicant continues to seek a Residential Design Standard Variance from the standard associated with Build-to lines. The change in plans affects this review in the following way. • In the previous design the front facade of the home was set back 50' from the property line. There was no portion of the front facade that was within the Code required five feet of the front yard setback line. • The current design depicts approximately 26% of the front facade (15') to be within five feet of the front yard setback line. • The Code standard requires 60% of the front facade to be within 5' of the front yard setback line. RECOMMENDATION: Staff continues to recommend the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for a Residential Design Standard Variance at this location, finding the criteria for a variance to not be met, for the reasons outlined in the original memo. 1 MIDLAND AVENUE z -Ali § 120.37' -_._ -•--- I j $� 1LO N04 54 OOW _- --- - • s' s.,s •s • Dm I CAD CAD CAB • �s s 1 1 �� 1 .a K is r �� I •I cN r �__`�-- •r l o 0 r • 1 ' � r r• ors, .N I f Vol� o I (� i i o0 p � � r / i i ® i I� • � cn y .a r fff Ue 1 .s •x ------------ _--- ._._•_ ._ _._._ ._ j i i f • • ` D ' ( z a o 141 ue s. r ! 'F c • ! "� ( i � � K � i ❑ � gg ► u I • ; I � • ___._._. �_. . •�----�a __---- --- .SE�-------- - r • • • 1 • - g 0 28 OOW ; 121.07' � -- lvxm DEN r_•� i I `I OR 2 i I i 0 LOFT I 1 II aosET CAI BN 01 I I ! I MBAIH ! ! oPVI 7o L1ElOt I I BATH t II of ! I ! I �I -LtaaF Mea I I ! { ! i ,N I � � I j LLLLLL i ( LLLL L I I I L LL LL I I I ! LLL LLL i I ! 4 LL LLLL I � I It L L'4 hLrLLLL I .LZ I I LLLLLLLL � ! � I I I I ! I I I ! f UPPER LEVEL PAN 111M PROPER=LLC/DAOEP fIENDMCE PArAM NO.275ASI05001 LOT 1 EAST MEA00W SUBdM90N 720 MDLAItl AVE. AVW.CO nett 6.22.14 0 3 10 15 20 1 AUM OCM a1Yfs LMT DO 4.2 �L CLOSET T �l klECHM (70 Sn CAL !I UP t BLOW Room I ° 2ELL vArnaY r I eAR I °AB I I BATH I� aoaEr PLAY/1ldA f 1 ( OBEOROOY CAB O Etl. sm BA1H aASma PLAN I NTS PRO OMM 110^am mm"m 1 PARCEL NM 273718108001 i LOT 1 EAST WAM S MNSON 320 NnU010 AYE. AS+EK CO$1811 8.2214 Tsiiia wm Onm sBn1a.2 tm"IMY 80A0 a 8 10 15 20 MOIYAIR m 8104 4-.3 t i `t f • ,1 JI s h s i i j t� j i i r : w a, l r P29 MEMORANDUM To: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Planning Director FROM: Justin Barker, Planner RE: Rubey Park,450 E.Durant St. -Planned Development Amendment and Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility Resolution No._, Series of 2014—Public Hearing MEETING DATE: July 15, 2014 APPLICANT/OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City of Aspen, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Transportation Department Commission recommend City Council APPROVE a Planned Development Amendment and Growth REPRESENTATIVE: Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. BlueGreen LOCATION: 450 Durant Street CURRENT ZONING Public(PUB)zone district with a Planned Development(PD) overlay SUMMARY: The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission a recommendation of approval for a Planned Development Amendment and Growth Management exemption for an Photo ofRubey Park Essential Public Facility. LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The following land use recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission are being requested: • Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility — pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.470 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). • Planned Development — Substantial Amendment for the amendment of a site specific development plan pursuant to Land Use Code Chapter 26.445 (City Council is the final review authority after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission). P30 h ECp�pr s f-_ s _ 8 Figure A: Vicinity Map BACKGROUND: The Rubey Park Transit Center is located on E. Durant Street, between S. Mill Street and S. Galena Street as shown in Figure A. The property is a 27,000 square foot lot and is zoned Public with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay . The property is also located on the edge of the Commercial Core Historic District. The existing transit center was originally built in 1987 and is approximately 1,700 sq. ft. After almost 30 years, the current demand of the site and facilities exceeds capacity. The existing facilities have proven to be inadequately sized for proper operations and the site is in need of improvement. PREVIOUS APPROVALS: Because this project is located within the Commercial Core Historic District, HPC conducted Conceptual design reviews prior to the Planned Development/GMQS application. In February, the project received approval from HPC via Resolution No. 5, Series of 2014. Under the amended Land Use Code, an application for Planned Development Review may be combined with Historic Preservation Review on a property that is located within a historic district. This This property was originally approved as an SPA. The Land Use Code has been amended since then, combining the SPA and PUD sections into one known as Planned Development (PD). All existing properties with an SPA or PUD overlay are reviewed as a Planned Development. Page 2 of 5 P31 combination may occur at Project Review, Detailed Review, or both. As this is an important public facility, P&Z will make a recommendation to Council on the site plan with HPC handling the final review. The Community Development Department has determined that the appropriate order of review for this project is as follows: 1. Conceptual Design—HPC (approved) 2. PD Project Review/GMQS—P&Z(current review) Project Review focuses on mass, scale, height, uses, etc. 3. PD Project Review/GMQS—City Council 4. Combined PD Detailed Review/Final Design—HPC Detailed Review focuses on utilities, materials, lighting, etc. In HPC Resolution No. 5, Series of 2014, HPC requested staff relay their concerns over the proposed parking plan. HPC did not support the use of public right-of-way for bus parking and suggested a restudy, particularly pertaining to the south side of Durant Street. PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant has gone through an extensive process to develop the proposed project. This included public outreach meetings, advisory team meetings and the development of an eventual schematic design that was endorsed by City Council in December 2013. The proposed project includes renovating of the existing structure, adding two new structures, and a roof connecting all three structures. The west structure will be used for RFTA staff, the remodeled central structure will be used for waiting and ticketing, and the east structure will be used for public restrooms. Additionally, the site and surrounding right-of-ways will be redeveloped to. accommodate a better pedestrian experience and improve bus circulation and parking on and around the property. This includes relocation of parking spaces currently located along Mill Street and Durant Street. The Public zone district requires that all dimensional standards be established through the adoption of a Final Planned Development approval. All dimensions will be established through the approved site specific plan. The applicant has provided preliminary information regarding signage for the project as shown in Exhibit E. In order to maintain proper bus route service from the same location throughout the construction process, the applicant is proposing 6 phases of construction. This maintains bus service while reducing the amount of time Durant Street is closed to create minimal impact on the surrounding road network. The phasing plan also includes the placement of a temporary facility on the east side of the site for ticket services, waiting space, and restrooms while construction of the new buildings occurs. The temporary facility is expected to be on site for approximately 5-6 months. STAFF EVALUATION: Planned Development Review(Exhibit A): The purpose of a Planned Development review is to encourage flexibility and innovation in the development of land which: A. Promotes the purposes, goals and objectives of applicable adopted regulatory plans. Page 3 of 5 P32 B. Achieves a more desirable development pattern, a higher quality design and site planning, a greater variety in the type and character of development and a greater compatibility with existing and future surrounding land uses than would be possible through the strict application of the zone district provisions. C. Preserves natural and roan-made site features of historic, cultural or scenic value. D. Promotes more efficient use of land,public facilities and governmental services. E. Incorporates an appropriate level of public input to the planning process to ensure sensitivity to neighborhood and community goals and objectives. F. Promotes safe and convenient transit,pedestrian,bicycle and vehicular access and circulation. G. Allows the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design practices that warrant variations from the standard permitted zone district land uses and dimensional requirements. Staff Response: Staff finds that the proposal is in general compliance with the review criteria of Section 26.445.050, Project Review Standards, located in Exhibit A. The proposed project will improve the functionality, safety and visual appeal of the site. Many of the City departments have been heavily involved in the design and decision-making process that has led to the proposed project. Without standard dimensions for the zone district, Council must determine if the proposed dimensions are appropriate, given the site location and surrounding uses. Staff finds that the proposed dimensions are the minimal necessary to construct the proposed project, and the overall architecture and massing is compatible with the context of the area. The PD review criteria require the development to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. Staff finds that the proposed application has improved these in many aspects. However, the pedestrian connections between the Mill and Galena Street malls and the proposed facility (shown in Figure B) could be better emphasized. Staff suggests there should be further refinement before City Council review to address this concern. - b.,d ; Figure B:Pedestrian Areas Page 4 of 5 P33 Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility (Exhibit B): The proposed project has been determined by the Community Development Director to be an Essential Public Facility. City Council may assess, waive, or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate for promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The role of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to determine employee generation for all essential public facilities and provide recommendation to City Council. Staff Response: Staff recommends that the employees generated for the Essential Public Facility use be what is presented in the application. City Council will finalize the percentage of mitigation required. The proposed project is expected to increase employees from 183.59 FTEs to 183.76 FTEs (a difference of 0.18 FTEs). This minor increase is due to a change in RFTA facilities staff time--less maintenance and repair time will be required, but a greater frequency and extent of cleaning will be needed. The employee generation estimate is required to be confirmed with an actual audit two years after CO. REFERRAL DEPARTMENTS: Building, Engineering, Fire Marshal, Water, Aspen Sanitation District, APCHA, Parks, Electric, Streets, Zoning, Environmental Health, and Parking have all reviewed the proposed application and any comments have been provided in Exhibit D, and will be included in any ordinance reviewed by Council. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission determine the employee generation increase to be 0.18 FTEs, and recommend City Council approve the request for a Planned Development Amendment and Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 2014, recommending approval of a Planned Development(PD) Amendment and Growth Management Review for Rubey Park." EXHIBITS: A. Review Criteria—Planned Development Project Review Standards B. Review Criteria— Growth Management C. HPC Resolution No. 5, Series of 2014 D. Referral Comments E. Proposed Signage F. Application Page 5 of 5 P34 RESOLUTION NO._ (SERIES OF 2014) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW FOR AN ESSENTIAL PUBLIC FACILITY FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS RUBEY PARK, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K,L,M, N, O, P, Q,R AND S, BLOCK 90, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-182-21-851 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen Transportation Department (Applicant), represented by BlueGreen, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of a Planned Development Amendment and Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility for the property commonly known as Rubey Park, legally described as Lots K, L, M,N, O P, Q, R and S, Block 90, City and Townsite of Aspen; and, WHEREAS, the property is zoned Public (PUB) with a Planned Development (PD) Overlay; and, WHEREAS,the property is located in the Commercial Core Historic District; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 12, 2014 the Historic Preservation Commission granted Conceptual Commercial Design Review and Conceptual Major Development Review approval via Resolution No. 5, Series of 2014; and WHEREAS, upon initial review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department recommended approval of the application; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on July 15, 2014, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. _, Series of 2014, by a to (_— _) vote, recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Planned Development Amendment and Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, Resolution No. , Series of 2014 Rubey Park Page 1 of 3 P35 WHEREAS,the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADO THAT: Section 1: General Approvals Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends City Council approve a Planned Development Amendment and Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility for Rubey Park. Section 2: Growth Management The Planning and Zoning Commission determines the project to generate 0.18 employees from its current level of 183.59 FTEs. City Council determines the mitigation requirement for the Essential Public Facility Growth Management review, based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's finding herein that 0.18 employees are generated by the proposed project. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that an employee audit be required two years after a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. If employees are found to be generated, any employee mitigation shall be subject to the rules and regulations in effect at the time of the audit. Section 3: Dimensional Requirements and Other Recommendations The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to City Council that the redevelopment of Rubey Park as presented shall meet the dimensional standards as outlined in the exhibits of this resolution. Additionally, the Commission recommends the following: 1. Consider refinement of the pedestrian connections between the Mill Street and Galena Street malls and the proposed transit facility to better accommodate pedestrian traffic prior to City Council review. Section 4: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 5• This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Resolution No._, Series of 2014 Rubey Park Page 2 of 3 P36 Section 6• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 1P day of July, 2014. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Debbie Quinn,Asst. City Attorney LJ Erspamer,Chair ATTEST: Cindy Klob,Records Manager Exhibit 1 —Floor plans Exhibit 2—Exterior elevations Resolution No. Series of 2014 Rubey Park Page 3 of 3 P37 EXHIBIT A 26.445.050. Project Review Standards. The Project Review shall focus on the general concept for the development and shall outline any dimensional requirements that vary from those allowed in the underlying zone district. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to show the reasonableness of the development application and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and this Title. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the dimensions which may be considered during the development review process. Any dimensional variations allowed shall be specified in the ordinance granting Project Approval. In the review of a development application for a Project Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission, as applicable, and City Council shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Adopted Regulatory Plans. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted regulatory plans. Staff Findings: Renovation of the Rubey Park site is in line with the transportation policies of the AACP,particularly the following: I L Improve the convenience, reliability, efficiency, comfort, accessibility, affordability, safety, capacity, and quality of the regional transit service experience, while ensuring physical improvements are consistent with community character. 14. Maintain the reliability and improve the convenience of City of Aspen transit services. Staff finds this criterion to be met. B. Development Suitability. The proposed Planned Development prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted for this standard. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The property contains land that is suitable for development. The property is already developed and is not located in any hazard zones or steep slopes. A geo-technical report outlining the existing property conditions prepared by Sopris Engineering is included in the application. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. C. Site Planning. The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: P38 1. The site plan responds to the site's natural characteristics and physical constraints such as steep slopes, vegetation, waterways, and any natural or man-made hazards and allows development to blend in with or enhance said features. 2. The project preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. 3. Buildings are oriented to public streets and are sited to reflect the neighborhood context. Buildings and access ways are arranged to allow effective emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Staff Findings: The site does not contain any natural features to respond to or preserve as mentioned in criterion B. All three structures are oriented toward the most public street (Durant Street) and help define a more consistent street fagade. The proposed access ways will improve the emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access by simplifying the vehicle turning movements and overall site design. Staff finds this criterion to be met. D. Dimensions. All dimensions, including density, mass, and height shall be established during the Project Review. A development application may request variations to any dimensional requirement of this Title. In meeting this standard, consideration shall be given to the following criteria: 1. There exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such variations. 2. The proposed dimensions represent a character suitable for and indicative of the primary uses of the project. 3. The project is compatible with or enhances the cohesiveness or distinctive identity of the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including the scale and massing of nearby historical or cultural resources. 4. The number of off-street parking spaces shall be established based on the probable number of cars to be operated by those using the proposed development and the nature of the .proposed uses. The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and/or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development, and the potential for joint use of common parking may be considered when establishing a parking requirement. 5. The Project Review approval, at City Council's discretion, may include specific allowances for dimensional flexibility between Project Review and Detailed Review. Changes shall be subject to the amendment procedures of Section 26.445.110 — Amendments. Staff Findings: This property is located in the Public (PUB) zone district, which does not have any set dimensional requirements, and are established through a Planned Development approval. The proposed dimensions are based on the design that has been established to meet the operational needs of RFTA. The applicant is not requesting any dimensions greater than what is necessary to complete the proposed project and complete the necessary operations of a transit facility. P39 The adjacent properties are zoned Park (which generally does not permit structures) or CC, CL, and L (which permit heights up to 40 feet in some instances). The proposed dimensions for this project are appropriate given the surrounding allowances of the commercial and lodge zone districts while relating to the adjacent parks. The proposed floor area ratio is about 0.11:1. This is lower than any of the zone districts in town that allow a structure to be built. The number of parking spaces proposed is less than what exists today. The reason for this is to enhance the pedestrian safety and connection between the Mill Street mall and Rubey Park, as well as reduce the amount of conflict between cars, buses and commercial vehicles that access the alley. The proposal does not include off-street parking for private vehicles to reinforce the use of alternative transportation. Only 3 spaces are included on Mill Street, mainly intended for emergency and operational vehicles when necessary. Staff finds this criterion to be met. E. Design Standards. The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 1. The design complies with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410, Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412, Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415,Historic Preservation. 2. The proposed materials are compatible with those called for in any applicable design standards, as well as those typically seen in the immediate vicinity. Exterior materials are finalized during Detailed Review, but review boards may set forth certain expectations or conditions related to architectural character and exterior materials during Project Review. Staff Findings: Due to the unique nature of this site's use and building type, staff determined that most of the design standards do not apply. However, the proposed development is in compliance with those that were determined appropriate for this particular site. HPC granted Conceptual Major Development approval for the project via Resolution No. 5, Series of 2014, detailing height, mass, scale, and proportions. The proposed materials are primarily brick, wood and glass. These materials can be found on several building nearby and are appropriate for the area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities. The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any vehicular access points, or curb cuts, minimize impacts on existing or proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. The City may require specific designs., mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: As an existing transit center, the proposed renovation is primarily intended to improve transit facilities by creating more organized bus parking, better bus circulation, and right-sized facilities for the current and near future anticipated operations. Additionally, the proposed site changes are intended to enhance the pedestrian access to and from the site. An existing We-cycle station will be retained on site and standard bicycle parking will be increased and relocated for better access and visibility. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. P40 G. Engineering Design Standards. There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the project to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29 — Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The City Engineering Department has been involved with the project advisory team throughout the design process. The applicant is well aware of the necessary engineering design and mitigation techniques for this project and has incorporated them into the project. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities. The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined as part of the Detailed Review and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The proposal includes upgrades to infrastructure and utilities where necessary. Many utilities are simply being tapped into from existing lines and rerouted to accommodate the renovated and new structures. The evaluation of existing facilities and needs is included in the report from Sopris Engineering. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I. Access and Circulation. The proposed development shall have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed Planned Development shall not eliminate or obstruct legal access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Planned Development retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Findings: There will be perpetual unobstructed vehicular access to the public way. The bus drive aisle provides access to both Mill Street and Galena Street and will ensure access for emergency vehicles. However, this should not be dedicated for public vehicular use in order to reduce conflict with buses and pedestrians. All other aspects of this project are public streets and an alley that will be maintained. There will be no gates. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P41 EXHIBIT B 26.470.090 (4), Essential public facilities. The development of an essential public facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project. Staff Findings: The Community Development Director has determined that the primary use of a transit facility is considered an essential public facility, serving an essential public purpose and is available for use by or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the community. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. Staff Findings: The calculations provided by the applicant show that 0.18 employees will be generated by the proposed project. Staff finds this minimal increase reasonable, due to a minor change in staff function related to the facility. Additional discussion on employee generation is provided in the following review criteria. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Sec. 26.470.100.Calculations. A. Employee generation and mitigation. Whenever employee housing or cash-in-lieu is required to mitigate for employees generated by a commercial or lodging development, there shall be an analysis and credit for employee generation of the existing project, prior to redevelopment, and an employee generation analysis of the proposed development. The employee mitigation requirement shall be based upon the incremental employee generation difference between the existing development and the proposed development. 1.. Employee generation. Applicants may request an employee generation review with the Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to Section 26.470.110, Growth management review procedures, and according to the following criteria. All essential public facilities shall be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine employee generation. In establishing employee generation, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the following: a. The expected employee generation of the use considering the employment generation pattern of the use or of a similar use within the City or a similar resort economy. P42 Staff Finding: The number of employees current staffed at Rubey Park is 183.50 FTEs. The intent of the project is to "right-size" the facility for the current operations of RFTA and public use. Although the proposed project will add 1,281 square feet of floor area, the applicant has estimated an increase of only 0.18 FTEs. The estimated increase is due to a change in RFTA facilities staff time. Less maintenance and repair time will be required with the new facility, but the frequency and extent of cleaning will be greater. As noted above, the intent is to "right-size" the facility. Currently, the staff level exceeds the available space and the proposed project is designed to accommodate this. Based on the proposed plan for Rubey Park, staff supports the applicant's assertion that 0.18 employees will be generated; however, staff does believe that this claim can be confirmed in the future with an employee audit at the request of APCHA. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Any unique employment characteristics of the operation. Staff Finding: Rubey Park is a unique operation. Many of the employees are not located at the facility for their entire shift,particularly route drivers and maintenance staff. The time spent by these employees at the facility is accounted for in the employee generation estimate. Staff finds this criterion to be met. c. The extent to which employees of various uses within a mixed-use building or of a related off-site operation will overlap or serve multiple functions. Staff Finding: Rubey Park is not a mixed use building. Off-site operations include drivers on routes throughout the valley and have been accounted for in the employee generation estimate. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. d. A proposed restriction requiring full employee generation mitigation upon vacation of the type of business acceptable to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff Finding: The applicant is not proposing to relocate or change the type of business conducted on the site. Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. e. Any proposed follow-up analyses of the project (e.g., an audit) to confirm actual employee generation. Staff Finding: APCHA has requested that an employee audit be conducted after two years of operation to determine if any new FTEs were generated from the project. An audit requirement has been incorporated into the P&Z Resolution. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P43 f. For lodge projects only: An efficiency or reduction in the number of employees required for the lodging component of the project may, at the discretion of the Commission as a means of incentivizing a lodge project, be applied as a credit towards the mitigation requirement of the free-market residential component of the project. Any approved reduction shall require an audit to determine actual employee generation after two (2) complete years of operation of the lodge. Staff Finding: Staff finds this criterion to not be applicable. 26.470.050 General Requirements. All development applications for growth management review shall comply with the following standards. The reviewing body shall approve, approve with conditions or deny an application for growth management review based on the following generally applicable criteria and the review criteria applicable to the specific type of development: 1. Sufficient growth management allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development, pursuant to Subsection 26.470.030.D. Application for multi-year development allotment, pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.090.1 shall not be required to meet this standard. Staff Findings: There is no annual limit for Essential Public Facilities. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development is compatible with land uses in the surrounding area, as well as with any applicable adopted regulatory master plan. Staff Findings: The surrounding land uses include commercial, park and mixed use. The site is currently occupied by a transit facility. This project is simply an expansion and remodel of the site and facilities with the same use. The proposed development is compatible with the goals of the AACP. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The development conforms to the requirements and limitations of the zone district. Staff Findings: The proposed development is an allowed use within the Public zone district. The dimensional requirements of the Public zone district are established through the Planned Development process and are approved at the discretion of City Council. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development is consistent with the Conceptual Historic Preservation Commission approval, the Conceptual Commercial Design Review approval and the Conceptual Planned Unit Development approval, as applicable. Staff Findings: Conceptual Major Development and Commercial Design approvals were granted for this project via HPC Resolution No. S, Series of 2014. The proposed development is consistent with those approvals. Staff finds this criterion to be met. P44 5. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, sixty percent (60%) of the employees generated by the additional commercial or lodge development, according to Subsection 26.470.100.A, Employee generation rates, are mitigated through the provision of affordable housing. The employee generation mitigation plan shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, at a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative.Extinguishment of the Certificate. Staff Findings: No employees shall be mitigated for at this time. If an audit is performed in two years and additional employees are shown, mitigation should be provided accordingly. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Affordable housing net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher, shall be provided in an amount equal to at least thirty percent (30%) of the additional free-market residential net livable area, for which the finished floor level is at or above natural or finished grade, whichever is higher. Affordable housing shall be approved pursuant to Paragraph 26.470.070.4, Affordable housing, and be restricted to a Category 4 rate as defined in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Guidelines, as amended. An applicant may choose to provide mitigation units at a lower category designation. Affordable housing units that are being provided absent a requirement ("voluntary units") may be deed-restricted at any level of affordability, including residential occupied. If an applicant chooses to use a Certificate of Affordable Housing Credit as mitigation, pursuant to Chapter 26.540, such Certificate shall be extinguished pursuant to Chapter 26.540.90 Criteria for Administrative Extinguishment of the Certificate, utilizing the calculations in Section 26.470.100 Employee/Square Footage Conversion. Staff Findings: Not applicable. 7. The project represents minimal additional demand on public infrastructure, or such additional demand is mitigated through improvement proposed as part of the project. Public infrastructure includes, but is not limited to, water supply, sewage treatment, energy and communication utilities, drainage control, fire and police protection, solid waste disposal, parking and road and transit services. Staff Findings: All public infrastructure is being upgraded where necessary as part of the proposed project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. RECEPTION#: 608184, 02/25/2014 at P45 09:30:20 AM, 1 of 4, R $26.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Janice K.Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO EXHIBIT C A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (HPC) GRANTING MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPTUAL) AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN(CONCEPTUAL) APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS RUBEY PARK, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K,L,M,N, O,P,Q, R AND S, BLOCK 90, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. RESOLUTION#5, SERIES OF 2014 PARCEL ID: 2737-182-21-851 WHEREAS, the applicant, City of Aspen, represented by B1ueGreen, requested HPC Conceptual Major Development and Commercial Design approval for the property commonly known as Rubey Park, legally described as Lots K, L, M, N, O P, Q, R and S, Block 90, City and Townsite of Aspen; and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;"and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, for Conceptual Commercial Design Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Commercial, Lodging and Historic District Design Objectives and Guidelines per Section 26.412.040.A.2, Commercial Design Standards Review Procedure, of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The HPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny;and WHEREAS, Justin Barker, in his staff report to HPC dated February 12, 2014, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards and recommended approval with condition; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on February 12, 2014, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application during a duly noticed public hearing, the staff memo and public comments, and found the proposal consistent with the review standards and granted approval with condition by a vote of 4 to 0. Rubey Park HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2014 Page 1 of 2 P46 NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That HPC hereby grants Major Development (Conceptual) and Commercial Design (Conceptual) approval for the property located at 420 E. Durant Avenue, Lots K, L, M, N, O P, Q, R and S, Block 90,City and Townsite of Aspen with the following condition: 1. Design Option 2 (Exhibit I) is approved. 2. HPC requests staff pass on their concern over the bus parking plan that is proposed. 3. A development application for a Final Development Plan shall be submitted within one (1)year of the date of approval of a Conceptual Development Plan. Failure to file such an ,application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of the Conceptual Development Plan. The Historic Preservation Commission may, at its sole discretion and for good cause shown, grant a one-time extension of the expiration date for a Conceptual Development Plan approval for up to six (6) months provided a written request for extension is received no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration date. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 12th day of February, 2014. Ja Mayti , Chair Approved as to Form: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Stric land,Chief Deputy Clerk Rubey Park HPC Resolution #5, Series of 2014 Page 2 of 2 r- C F m x X m ®�Od B february 2,2014 revised roof option: elevation l P48 is kT7t L {� r ��S.�sJ _ep 31�1 ~-i-+�,j•��.•y` r t� '�i J x, r�•a Z yr T '� _i,j�y� 1� t t �4 t r y RT, gwt ax, t �a�t •,"4 �£. i Writ .. � ,y h� Ty='-`'�r -.Py i 2 � x� I� t+3-f .� � ►- 4'�-t„�I�,t r r'±,.�c--i"ik�� <,�- t r '4 a 'K fN ,• a t; L rrttdrr . i f -t�4 �. > t Sit'.F` r ac r�5"L'_.r�cxsT�:. 'L�F +ei1 tL y � er ✓ ` t ` Ta: f r •:: i.q � £ �,� 'tyh` aft -� �'_..x'�'". r,�i .x T t . �y7x4n M `X k,i4t ( # fie» e1.4n p ' W �� Y�W 7<I%ik_'icr.F, AD ��x ✓�' 'j� r� f L 1 'r 1 t r , � F t r P49 EXHIBIT D Engineering Drainage: General note: The design for the site must meet the Engineering Design Standards which includes the Urban Runoff Management Plan Requirements, Construction Mitigation Plan and Construction and Excavation Standards. Staff was not able to determine whether or not the site will meet these requirements. A full review will be completed when adequate information is provided. A compliant drainage plan must be submitted with a building permit application. This includes detaining and providing water quality for the entire site. If the site chooses fee-in-lieu of detention(FIL), it can only be applied to existing impervious areas. All new impervious areas will need to discharge at historic rates. Staff was unable to determine whether or not the site is able to meet all the Drainage Principals: 1.Consider stormwater quality needs early in the design process. 2.Use the entire site when planning for stormwater quality treatment. 3.Avoid unnecessary impervious area. 4.Reduce runoff rates and volumes to more closely match natural conditions. 5.Integrate stormwater quality management and flood control. 6.Develop stormwater quality facilities that enhance the site, the community, and the environment. 7.Use a treatment train approach. 8.Design sustainable facilities that can be safely maintained. 9. Design and maintain facilities with public safety in mind. A few general items that may aid the design of the project: 1.The existing inlets will need to be relocated in-line with the proposed flow line of the curb. 2.The head in parking should remain angled. 3.An exhibit to show turning movements will be required. 4.Impervious area cannot be increased if fee-in-lieu of detention is to be utilized. 5.Silva Cell technology may be considered as a BMP to provide for WQCV requirements. 6.Consider 35ft site line requirements. Sidewalk and Curb and Gutter: The sidewalks, curbs and gutters will be replaced as part of the project. Construction Management—Engineering is concerned about the Construction Impacts of this site. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, and truck traffic. Note that the current code does not allow for any encroachments during the on-seasons (November 1 —April 15 and June 1 —Labor Day). Fee in Lieu—This project is considered a Major project and can opt to pay the Fee in Lieu for a portion of the detention requirements. Please refer to Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code. Page 1 of 4 P50 ACSD Service is contingent upon compliance with the District's rules, regulations, and specifications, which are on file at the District office. ACSD will review the approved Drainage plans to assure that clear water connections (roof, foundation,perimeter, patio drains) are not connected to the sanitary sewer system. On-site utility plans require approval by ACSD. Old service lines must be excavated and abandoned at the main sanitary sewer line according to specific ACSD requirements. Below grade development may require installation of a pumping system. One tap is allowed for each building. Shared service line agreements may be required where more than one unit is served by a single service line. Permanent improvements are prohibited in sewer easements or right of ways. Landscaping plans will require approval by ACSD where soft and hard landscaping may impact public ROW or easements to be dedicated to the district. All ACSD fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. Peg in our office can develop an estimate for this project once detailed plans have been made available to the district. Where additional,development would produce flows that would exceed the planned reserve capacity of the existing system (collection system and or treatment system) an additional proportionate fee will be assessed to eliminate the downstream collection system or treatment capacity constraint. Additional proportionate fees would be collected over time from all development in the area of concern in order to fund the improvements needed. Glycol heating and snow melt systems must be designed to prohibit and discharge of glycol to any portion of the public and private sanitary sewer system. The glycol storage areas must have approved containment facilities. Soil Nails are not allowed in the public ROW above ASCD main sewer lines and within 3 feet vertically below an ACSD main sewer line. We can comment on this application in greater detail once detailed plans have been submitted to the District. Environmental Health Door to recycling/trash area(#25 on site plan). During the last DRC meeting, I indicated the door should be a metal rolling door that opens to the outside. On the A3.1 elevation drawing (page 20), it shows that type of door. However, on the Final Design Site plan drawing(page 19) Page 2 of 4 P51 the doors are shown to be a double door that opens away from the building. This drawing should be altered to agree with the elevation drawing. Curb or grade? None of the drawings indicate if the trash/recycling area(#25 on site plan) will be on grade or have a ramp cut into the curb. It must be one of those options, since a dumpster cannot be lifted up over a curb during service times. The site plan(page 19) only shows two permanent trash and recycling receptacles (#23, 24). Two is insufficient. There needs to be a third location in between the two located at the ends,of the facility to accommodate the needs of the public using the transit center. Door to recycling/trash area(#25 on site plan) from the interior is shown opening into the storage space. It would be preferable for that door to open into the interior of the building to allow for more storage within the recycling/trash area. Parks The cottonwood tree on the NE corner of Durant and Mill streets shall be preserved. Leave a stub out to extend the snowmelt system along the sidewalk along Durant between Mill and Monarch streets. This sidewalk is actually not part of the Rubey Park bus terminal, however, they do plan on using it for the staging of buses. In doing so, it shades the entire sidewalk making it a hazardous area for pedestrian use. Parks feels that the area needs to either be snow melted or that the staging of buses not be allowed along this stretch of Durant as there is no place to store the snow except into the newly graded and landscaped park. If the buses are not staged there, then we could plow the snow into the street and have it removed over to the usual storage area by McDonalds. I am not certain how much more costs are involved in the additional snow melt but Parks may be able to help offset those charges. Buildinj The parking spaces along Mill Street should be designated as ADA. A year-round water fountain must be provided. The kitchenette will need to meet the ICC/ANSI A 117.1-2003 section 804. ZoninjZ Zone district: PUB/PD Permitted Use: 6. Public Transportation Stop Page 3 of 4 . o P52 11. Public park D. Dimensional requirements: The dimensional requirements which shall apply to all permitted and conditional uses in the Public (PUB) Zone District shall be set by the adoption of a Final Planned Development approval granted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 26.445, Planned Development. Typical zoning interests: • Outdoor lighting: have seen nothing on this topic • Impact fees: existing net leasable 1,560 increase to 2,766, which is a 1,206 square feet • Floor area: existing 1,708 to 2,989 increase of 1,281 • Height: existing at 28'3" not change proposed Zoning has no current comments given the use is permitted in the zone district and the dimensional requirements are set through the PD approval process. APCHA Although the Rubey Park Transit Facility should be classified as an essential public facility, the remodel is adding up to an additional 1,206 net livable square feet. APCHA does not support the waiving of the mitigation requirement. The City of Aspen should lead by example and mitigate for the employees generated by any additional development; however, APCHA would recommend that an employee audit be conducted, at the cost of the City and completed by an outside source approved by APCHA,two years after Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant first needs to provide an acceptable beginning base of FTE's to APCHA to work off of for the audit. If any additional employees have been added after that audit, mitigation should be required. The use of the audit process would require that the current number of employees, full-time and part-time,be provided to APCHA prior to building permit approval for the remodel. RECOMMENDATION: APCHA recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. An acceptable FTE count shall be provided to APCHA prior to building permit approval. This should include all RFTA employees. The hours worked for each employee will be provided to APCHA. That number will be divided by 2,080 hours to establish the beginning FTE base. 2. An employee audit shall be conducted two years after CO. If the audit shows additional FTE's, the applicant shall provide mitigation based on that number. 3. The entity selected to conduct the employee audit shall be approved by APCHA; ANY COSTS SHALL BE PAID BY THE APPLICANT. Page 4 of 4 M CL IYMBOL 11 1 Duxm w n ax SIGN vE t oei—A,ION nA';KG:msG, i-0 _ .... _....... ..... _...... 0 �-,• , / -IoRE [ on SIGN ro x 0,CENTE0.; RE N SIGN I TVVEPG x n ..... ... • IDEMIfIGTIO ) LD -BUS BFPTX,Pf:l VL9G3 a w • 0.FPL T nE G G • (fLECiRONiC);N RE:aPCX o a STREET Lanv TO Sf . a t-7 SIGN BEL. rveDXPT on SRE toErvnFlGT�On m SIGN Ix.oP iE:SIGN,nFa�RT SIGN; w.L — GTRE T une TDe fDR eEDf r ___ GTREFT MPFE PIG,RCENTER NDeaR.ING E rv0 IAR.ING.xDS DP E ' NO PARKING ° I I aN,GEAEALGnn EN;anDARRP .e N oRDFE,C.L DNL. o e.R NG R IS - O PING _ ONLY PP,xG ,G xDIGPeR 11 — --- — ® ® ® Y _ oNLv 1) No PAIRIx G O rEr xxnE om F ------ .... -- Eus axA IN _ J i ——————— ------. ND e.R.InG', .E ROGDrvLr r LO<DINGxDDX,ND>aRP,xG 0 r Z;,L I o G _LINID ON: xO ENTRr GTPF 1 I I TRafnG. NanE ONE NO P.DO NOT ENIER;S N�nOe P',xG. DN -a xG,aus soP xD VanP�xc eus sroc; E N/a..GTPFFT Nang � 1 Ea - L----------__------ ---�-_ z _�------ # / a. �r I ' . � � '' ./. � ' J9nay.ellyxnnR elan♦ , i , i , i ' �® ®— Ar—...I D — I 1�- �. .oXx I I� PRELIMINARY L900 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION j IegenE N gmenl�mtF puAMfry 0 0 --- --------- DRIfxTA EtL9pq 1DEMIifGTfON SIGN nP E E Lggz i TwEq KwsK cMER.RE:a 1 • IDExnFlGnox stOx nPEI 10 m Bus NERTN;RE:l A/Lg02 m NE SIGN — (ELfciROxtc);0.f:ARCH p h E x .—...._....—.._..� .._.—:x.._..._.._..—...._._.._.._..�_...._.._.....— .._. _.._..:.—.....� ........ ........................_ +❑f � LL E l NNroTR IFl NGnnTDIO siGn N _- '' 3.'y'u�\1u,I p SIGH INioR N� � NDPARK.xG cm gTDPFGRPfDEGTa D�. _ a ] x0 PA0.NING E / RE SITE GG IDErvTIF1GTlOx sIGN, ,, vO PARK IHG,NVS STOP RE.NIGI-EETw 1,11 j p oNEw:NG I 4$ / I N PA INGFDRDiitGI.LGRG n KIDS.DENER GxL. o rvGiDRGFiI�AEGRN NGp NERTN SIGN; RK,NG oNL. I NRxDIGPPA 0.ERLnNE SIGN;RE:ARCx. ,'m- "' '��-� � � Rt N Al;M ttP. x t] Of lAl;NO PARKING B NE coNNG DN PAARKKItNxG G:DDNLN D NLx, G.PARKING : s g 1, NDP,RKING. 1N _ DGDxL. DI x 1q ------ — -- -- p N -------- LDADI LG A ��=ooM°�o o.RKI G 0 GRfT r — — xNNE - I L--J . NE WR..xD PARK1rvG DP DD GT ENTER=T ND PARNG:NAG GTDP PARKIG.NGq KIxG NDS wA..GTRffT MANE O Ea)1 I o QS I L L 01101/101.1 DD-1.1-01 ® I ® ® o 1D l l! L901 PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION C V) u') CL 3::,6: 2; E U w smec p,�, since lie,— I,0El.lj lICATI BUS BERTH 3D IDENTIFICATION SIGN TYPE 2—KIOSK INFORMATION SIGNAGE 0— SIGN TYPE 3 ---------- -P 14, cT� a, o —1 LIT `ZA IDENTIFICATION ION SIGN TYPE 3 BUS BERTH IDENTIFICATION F.ISATION SIGN TYPE 1 ORIENTATION P SIGNAGE !LFICAL PRELIMINARY L902 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Employee Generation EEXHIMT revised 6 30 14 Current Conditions* Position Title Total Work Hours/Day Work Shifts/Day RP Work Hours/Day RP Work Hours/Year Total FPEs ;Unique Considerations Facilities Staff General Repair and Maintenance Staff Person 8 2 4 1,460 General Repair and Maintenance Staff Person 8 2 4 1,460 Janitorial Staff Person na na 5 1,825 subcontracted to non-RFTA staff 2.28 Operations Staff Supervisor(Day and Night) 30 2 10 3,650 overlap occurs at AMF Supervisor(Special Events) 10 1 10 50 xgames Supervisor(Ski) 10.5 1 10.5 1,585.5 ski season only(11/21-4/20) 2.541 Clerk(Day and Night) 9.3 2 18.6 6,789 Cr N Clerk(Special Events) 6 1 6 45 bike race/july 4 night/halloween night/new years eve/xgames G � 3.29 0) Drivers(City Route) 10 15 150.0 54,750 actual time spent at RP is while on break Drivers(Valley Route)** 10 85 850.0 310,250 actual time spent at RP is while on break ,Zl W 175,48 3 Total hours per year 381,864.5 C Full Time Equivalent(FiE) 183.59'.'. C, Post Construction Conditions— CD 0 rn Position Title Total Work Hours/Day Work Shifts/Day RP Work Hours/Day RP Work Hours/Year Total FfEs `Unique Considerations CD Facilities Staff General Repair and Maintenance Staff Person 8 2 4 1,460 CL C General Repair and Maintenance Staff Person 8 2 2 730 Janitorial Staff Person na na 8 2,920 subcontracted to non-RFTA staff p 2.45. Cl) Operations Staff XI Supervisor(Day and Night) 10 2 10 3,650 overlap occurs at AMF CD < Supervisor(Special Events) 10 1 10 50 xgames CD Supervisor Ski P (Ski) 10.5 1 10.5 1,585.5 ski season only(11/21-4/20) 2.54-' co Clerk(Day and Night) 9.3 2 18.6 6,789 N Clerk(Special Events) 6 1 6 45 bike race/july 4 nightthalloween night/new years eve/xgames 3.29' Drivers(City Route) 10 15 150.0 54,750 actual time spent at RP is while on break Drivers(Valley Route)** 10 85 850.0 310,250 actual time spent at RP is while on break 175.48 Total hours per year 382,229.5 Full Time Equivalent(FfE) _ 183.76 Net FTE Change 0.18 Notes: *current conditions uses typical winter conditions and special events to represent a time when staffing is at its highest **Includes only the 85 drivers of valley routes that connect to the rubey park transit center ***proposed conditions uses projections based on typical winter conditions and special events to represent a time when staffing is at Its highest F W m � I _ — _..__ —.—_..._I - - - - Y o _ � L a WZ Z ROO PLAN Co 0 it - ADMIN ADDITION WAITING ROOM RESTROOM ADDITION (B MI I E EL PLAN a PLANS A2.1 �.i81HX N .m X ADLNN ADDITION WAITING ROOM REWROOM ADDITION UAT3_N ��...:150._.._...TH...ELEV_..__..__..._...—p------ d o m w < RESTROOM ADDITION WAITING ROOM ADMIN ADDRiON £ �2._.NORTH ELEVATION_..___.___. s ELEVATION—RESTROOM ADDITION 4`}EAST ELEVATION WAITING ROOM $ EAST ELEVATION AOMIN ADDITION ._...__._...._.._ $ cLcvanans ; X61 WEST ELEVATION RESTROOM ADDITION 7-jam WEST ELEVATION WAITING ROOM All li ,✓5-xa.v�. J Ta ;✓WEST ELEVATION ADMIN ADDITION