Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.500 Doolittle Dr.0022.2009.ASLUTHE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER PARCEL ID NUMBER PROJECTS ADDRESS PLANNER CASE DESCRIPTION REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION 0022.2009.ASLU 2735 132 04 825 500 DOOLITTLE DR JENNIFER PHELAN SPA AMENDMENT HASSLAND MANAGEMENT 12/15/2009 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY on 12/15/2009 /"~ icr DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. City of Aspen, 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Colorado, 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number Lot 25 Water Plant Affordable Housing Aspen Colorado more commonly known as City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant. Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property The Applicant received approval to allow for the remodeline of the front fapade and ramps on the administrative building and extendin¢ the eave of an existin bg uildinQ to create a caroort. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Grant of an approval of a 8040 Greenline Review SpeciallxPlanned Area amendment and Growth Management Review by the City Council and associated approvals via Ordinance No 18 Series of 2009 AnKllSt 24`", 2009. Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) Seatember 6'h. 2009 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) S~tember 6'", 2012 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 7th day of September, 2009, by the City of Aspen Community Chris~endon, Community Development Director .. P~ I~ ~ I~~-l3x'64 -gS 2 pp22 2cr~l k`,L~I Eiie Edtt @eoord pkavgate Fprm Reports Format Tab Help ®~~°-®~~ ~3- as r P ~®~t-~ ~I~ ~- fir.*~a ~®~0i) t2~•~ I"'^"' I Yduetlon ~ Custom Fly I $cUass ~ Fee$. ~ Daresis ~ Fes `~xmarlL ~ ~ ems ~ Attadr~ie~s ~ RoY~W Stebu ~ Routin0 4 F Permit Type aslu ~ Aspen Land Use Permit # 0022.2009.ASLU Address SOD DOOLITTLE DR J Apt~Suita City ASPEN State CO ~ ZD 81611 J ermit Information. --. _ __ - _.... ._...__ _._. Master Perrrut ~- J Routvrg Queue a51u07 Applied 03~20~2009 J ~,I Project J Status pending Approved ~J Descrption CITY OF ASPEN -PUBLIC WORKS DEPT -WATER TREATMENT PLANT - 500 Issued ~J i DOOLITTLE DR. CARPORT ADDITION TO EXISTING GARAGE~STORAGE BUILDING AND OFFICE Final ~J ! Submitted HASS LAND PLANNING, LLC Clock RunrYng Days 45 Ezpces 03~15~2010 J Last Name CITY OF ASPEN J First Name CITY HALL 130 S GALENA ST ii ASPEN CO 61611 Phone r Owner Is AppY[ant? '' Last Name CITY OF ASPEN J First Name CITY HALL 130 5 GALENA ST i ,, , ASPEN CO 81611 Phone ~- Cust # 28530 J xp -__ -Lender _. ... _. __ ___. __ _ Last Name ~ J First Name Phone ----- AspenGoldib) . _ ~ Record: l of 1 lUo ~e~ ~~ fi ~•, ! \a/ 1 ~""~ ` ~, 2.'13- 132-oc~_ Eile~~Edit @eCard p~aviyatla Form Reports Format Ia6 Help r~ ~ r~ r~ rya _ T ~ a rfl la. ,n In ,~ ~, r Owner Is Applicant? Permit # 0022.2009.ASLU AptJSuRe State CO ~ Zip 81611 Master Permit ~ Routing Queue aslu07 Applied 03J20J2009 J Project ~ Status pending Approved ~J Description CITY OF ASPEN -PUBLIC WORKS DEPT -WATER TREATMENT PLANT - Iswed ~J CARPORT ADDITION TO EXISTING GARAGEJSTORAGE BUILDING AND OFFICE SPACE ADDITION TO THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING. Final ~ J Submitted HASS LAND PLANNING, LLC Clock Running Days ~ Expires 03J15J2010 -Owner - - -- _.--- -. - ---- __ Last Name CITY OF ASPEN ~ Fust Name CITY HALL 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN CO 81611 Phone Permi Type aslu .Aspen Land Use Address 130 S GALENA ST City ASPEN -Penrdt Information - - - - - - - - - Last Name CITY OF ASPEN 2~ First Name CITY HALL 130 5 GALENA ST ASPEN CO 81611 Phone ~ Cust # 28530 ~--er D~-~'cs~.., 1 n~~e~rrw~ ~ lNake.~ l r?r.~" i~nRf ~ ~/ Last Name J First Name Phone ~- ELF ~~(A Co ~ ~n °~ ~~ar Mods aY4. Locc•-'~~~w. ~ ~ X csv~ ~[.G cu-s~ ~ ~~~ .~ -r. i VJ__ u1~~ fi ~ G- 1 o N x- `~ d I _ (yJ Q O - ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ = z o - -~ O # 2R © R _ - Y W - 3 O zr-¢ ~ woo r - Hz~ a~ = _ ,, ono "" - w r r = v o ww z o = ~r-~ m _ 70.® n t-L4 0 ~ aF~ ~ F *t = Q m a - X v Z m = N D ~ a o m 0 ~ ,~ o mm W~V ~ ~ X Umd ~~ ~ ~~-a ~ Wry ... ~tl w (D LI ~{ _ ~ +D !~_ ~ ~ LLY. = M !a!~ ~± ,,,. "t~ AFF'1I3AVFT OF' p'UBLIC NOTICE RE~jJIRED SY SECTI®N 26.304.07©, ASPEN LAND ITSE CODE AI3I3R.ESS OF' PROPERTY: Aspen, CO STATE OF' COL.ORAII~O ) } ss. Cotumty arf Pitknn ) I, r ~ `~ f~ K ~ G~ ~ (name, please print) being or repTe eS sting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following mazmer: V 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 no later than fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached lxereto. 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 no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. _~ sG~.--.--~~ Signature The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was a~ckn~o~wledged before me this ~ day of ~ ivt(21/' > 200, by -ir ".-~ ~ ~/` G0~~7 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My comrnission expires: S ~ ~O~ o =° ., Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: Pu blishetl in The Aspen Times Weekly on September 6th, 20o9. ~39]2400~ COPY OF THE P UBLICATION CORY J. GARSKE ~f CGIMPo651U0 tXNNbn 061Q01$Q~~ M • ATTACHMENT? AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: :.~C.~L/ ~G+6~ lt~ .Yl~ . ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: I~pytp~.{ ~1~tq Z(~, @~j .' t~T/~, 200g STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I, ~1~~ SCO,~e~ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City 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: V Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an oft~ial paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (1 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 and was continuously visible from the day of 200_, 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 an~c~ 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. (continued on next page) ,., ~_, AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: J~Q 1/(~L,I'~111,E 1 /1~.It/G Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: U r ~ ay , 200Q STATE OF COLORADO ss. County ofPitl'u ) I, (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, ereby 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 Ic' ulation 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 hei t. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the;l day of Gvs-r 200, to and incl/u'ding 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(Ex2) 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. Rezoning or text amendment Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended in idental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the tent 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 shallbe waived. However, the p osed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifte ys ri o the public hearing on such amendments. The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was ackp~ 1~ ge before e this ~ day v of~QtlSf , 200, by !! a ~Q,L?:S [[TT WITNESS MY HAND OFFICIAL SEAL My co ~ •e • ~~ 2 2G l ~ No ~ubli ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE P UBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OFTHE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL NATILLLW F. MY Consnission Exmrea 10102P1Ott PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 500 DOOLITTLE DRIVE, WATER TREATMENT PLANT, SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, August 24a', 2009, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Haas Land Planning, LLC, 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108, Aspen, CO, 81611 on behalf of the City of Aspen, 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, CO, 81611 who is the owner of the subject building. The applicant is proposing to remodel the facade and add a carport to the Water Treatment Plant. The applicant is requesting the following development approval: Specially Planned Area Amendment, Special Review and Growth Management Review. The properties are legally described as Lot 25, Water Plant Affordable Housing, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. For further information, contact Errin Evans at the City of Aspen Community Development Departrnent, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2745, errine@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Michael C. Ireland, Mavor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on August 9s', 2009 City of Aspen Account `. ~, , ALEXANDER JOAN P ANDERSON TIM 739 25RD 11 E WATER PLACE GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 ASPEN, CO 81611 BLOEMSMA PHILIP CASTLE RIDGE ASSOCIATES LTD 0074 TWIN RIDGE DR C/O HILL MANAGEMENT CO ASPEN, CO 61611 PO BOX 95 ST ANN, MO 63074 CITY OF ASPEN CLUB PROPERTIES INC ATTN FINANCE DEPT 1 GROVE ISLE DR #1501 130 S GALENA ST MIAMI, FL 33133 ASPEN, CO 81611 CRIMMEL WILLIAM & PETRA CROOK ROBERT B 323 GROVE CT 7 E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CROWLEY JAMES P III DAKS FAMILY TRUST 21 W WATER PLACE 689 S STARWOOD DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DESGEORGES JOHN DILBECK JASON 202 GROVE CT GIBSONE ALEXANDER SCOTT ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 8321 ASPEN, CO 81612 FABROCINI ROBERT FRISSELLE FAM TRUST 50% o PO BOX 10820 ARBURY DOROTHY D TRUST 50 /o ASPEN, CO 81612 123 LARKSPUR LN ASPEN. CO 81611 GREGG JASON A & URSULA M HAGERTY KEVIN JOHN 8 ELIZABETH B 660 MOORE DR 15 E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HEGER FRANK & CARLA KELLY KATHLEEN 222 GROVE CT 8 E WATER PL ASPEN. CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LARKSPUR HOLDINGS LLC LATHROP JACQUELINE SUE 1/2 7607 CURTIS ST 4340 JORDAN DR CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 MC FARLAND, WI 53558 ~^^~ BERGMAN CARL R & CATHERINE M PO BOX 1365 ASPEN, CO 81612 CHRISTIAN RONALD E 8 JOY R 18 W WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 CONSUEGRA LINDA 10 E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 CROSS SUSAN K 242 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 DAVIS DANIEL L & BRENDA L 3 E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 DUFFEY MARY A 99.009% BERLEY DAVID B .001 PO BOX 3652 ASPEN, CO 81612 GOLDSBOROUGH NEAL 4 E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 HARDER DEBORAH H 109 TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 KIERNAN MARC 161 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 LAZY W CASTLE CREEK LLC PO BOX 9603 ASPEN, CO 81612 ~.-~ ~.. LEE BRUCE LANDON LINN WILLIAM & NATASHA 141 GROVE CT 19 W WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 MACLEAN ARCHIBALD JR 8 ANNE 90 TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 MENDOZA MARTIN 8 OLGA 14 E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 MOORE FAMILY PUD MASTER ASSOC INC C/0 KAUFMAN & PETERSON PC 315 E HYMAN #305 ASPEN. CO 81611 ODONOVAN DENTS 262 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY 530 E MAIN ST #302 ASPEN, CO 81611 PRESS DAVID H & SHARI J PO BOX O ASPEN, CO 81612 ROGERS J W 2225 THOMAS RD BEAUMONT,TX 77706 RYERSON LOREN 8 MARY 455 DOOLITTLE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 MAGNUSON RICK 17 E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 61611 MERRITT ROBERT C DARNAUERJEANETTE R 51 TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 61611 :..~ MOUNTAIN OAKS EMPLOYEE HOUSING ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL 200 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ONEIL DENNIS & SHARON 101 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 PODHURST AARON S & DOROTHY E TRUSTEES 25 W FLAGLER ST MIAMI, FL 33130 READY RANDY 8 CHERYL C/0 CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 RRF CORPORATION RICHARD I FORMAN C/O 1001 S BAYSHORE DR STE 1400 MIAMI, FL 33131 MACAYEAL IAN 1/2 6 E WATER PL ASPEN, CO 81611 MEADOWOOD LLC 33 SOUTH STATE ST #400 CHICAGO, IL 60603 MIKOS ALYSON 19% TNT 6164 WILDWOOD GLEN LAS VEGAS, NV 89131 MURRAY LEON R 12 E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 PATTERSON PAUL T & PATRICIA O 499 MEADOWOOD DR ASPEN, CO 81611 POLOVIN DAVID L PO BOX 4382 ASPEN, CO 81612 RINTOUL AMY V 161 GROVE CT ASPEN. CO 81611 ROBIN NANCY HIRSCH OPRT 3035 CHAIN BRIDGE RD NW WASHINGTON, DC 20016 RYMAN KAREN L SILVER MORTON FREDRIK & ELLEN 343 GROVE CT ORDA ASPEN, CO 81611 45 E 89TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10128 SLATTERY BRIAN SMITH ASHTON TRICE STRONG ROSEMARY 5 E WATER PL 2 EAST WATER PL STRONG BURNAND ALIA ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 60 TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 SWIM JOHN 8 STEPHANIE 300 AABC UNIT E ASPEN, CO 81611 THAU HAROLD A 8 DOROTHY A 0536 MEADOWOOD DR ASPEN. CO 81611 TOMB WILLIAM N 50% INT 40 TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 VAUGHAN MATT 8 E WATER PL ASPEN, CO 81611 WATER PLACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION C/O CITY ATTORNEY 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 WRITER SUZANNE B 8 RUSSELL S 864 MOORE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 TWIN RIDGE HOA 363 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 WACHS EDWARD H JR PO BOX 405 ASPEN, CO 81612 WEIL KIM R BETSY SCHEINKMAN- 77TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ZANE EDWARD JR & ANNA 54 TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 -^~. ~. THISSELL MARINA L C 1/2 HOOD JEFFREY M 1/2 121 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 VANDINE FAMILY TRUST 2132 PASEO DEL MAR PALOS VERDES, CA 90274 WALLA JOHN D & JEAN D PO BOX 161 ASPEN, CO 81612 WEINKLE JULIAN & MARY NORMA 61 PRIMROSE PATH ASPEN, CO 81611 ~~' MEMORANDUM vn~a. TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE OF MEMO: August 14, 2009 MEETING DATE: August 24, 2009 RE: 500 Doolittle Drive, City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant - Specially Planned Area Amendment and Growth Management Quota System Review Second Reading of Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2009 APPLICANT /OWNER: Water Department, City of Aspen REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC LOCATION: Civic Address - 500 Doolittle Drive; Legal Description -Lot 25, Water Plant Affordable Housing, City of Aspen; Parcel Identification Number - 2735- 132-04-825 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Public (PUB) zone district with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay containing the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant facility. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to remodel the main office building while adding a carport to a second building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Aspen City Council approve the request for a Specially Planned Area Amendment and Growth Management Review. SUMMARY: On June 16~h, this application was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, who approved the 8040 Greenline Review and made a recommendation to Council to approve the SPA Amendment and the Growth Management Quota System Review. Now before the Council are the SPA Amendment and the Growth Management Review for Council approval. the Revised 8/17/2009 Page 1 of 5 ~, .~ STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has submitted a minor change to the application since the First Reading. The applicant would like to extend the eave for the carport for the entire length of the building instead of only partially as first presented. The applicant requested the meeting to be continued because one Council member was absent. The changes have been included as Exhibit D as a supplement to the application. The memo that was provided from the meeting on July 27`h has been included for your reference. E 0 2FE?10 1.020 Lc30 200 FeBI BACKGROUND: The City Water Treatment Plant is located at the end of Doolittle Drive off of Castle Creek Road. Currently the facility is comprised of several buildings and ponds that comprise of the City's water treatment plant. The applicant, the City of Aspen Utilities Department, proposes to remodel the administrative building and add a roof extension to create a carport on an existing building at the facility located at 500 Doolittle Drive (See Application - Exhibit B). Please note when you review the application, you will notice that the applicant would like to expand the existing office space by 1,200 square feet. This issue and the relevant reviews will be explored at a later date. Staff requests that the application be bifurcated and the approvals for the additional office space will be heard at a later date. Revised 8/17/2009 Page 2 of 5 Figure 1: Vicinity Map ,.. ~,., approved the 8040 Greenline Review for the project and recommended that the Council approve the Specially Planned Area Amendment and the Growth Management Review. For the proposal before the Council at this time, two approvals are required. The required approvals for this proposal include a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment and Growth Management Quota System Review. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the City Council to remodel the administrative building and a carport: • SPA Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.440.050 (A) Review Standards for a development in a Specially Planned Area. This application does not qualify for an administrative amendment. All modifications shall be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council. This proposal does qualify for Consolidated Review. In this case, the conceptual and final plans may be combined based on the limited scope of the project. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, may make a recommendation to the City Council for approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the SPA amendment. The City Council is the final authority. The Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation to Council on June 16`h to approve the amendment. • Growth Management Ouota System -Essential Public Facilities pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.090 4. Any development to an essential public facility requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to make a recommendation to the City Council for approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Growth Management Review. The City Council is the final authority. The Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation to Council on June 16` to approve the review. • 8040 Greenline Review for any development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level as pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030 (C) 8040 Greenline Review Standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission is .the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the 8040 Greenline Review on June 16`h. SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REVIEW: The applicant proposes to remodel the entrance to the building by extending the roof over the ramps and changing the configuration of the ramps. The Community Development staff believes that the proposed remodel and the carport extension are consistent with the intent of the approved final development plan for the Water Treatment Facilities. The changes proposed are relatively minor. The remodel to the front of the administrative building will be an improvement over the existing entrance. The accessibility ramps will be easier to use. No changes are proposed to the floor area at this time. The existing administrative building is shown below in Figure 2: Existing Administrative Building as seen when approaching the site through the gate from Doolittle Drive. Revised 8/14/2009 Page 3 of 5 t,, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW: This application also requires growth management review for the new carport. The extension of the eaves of an existing building will not create any new employee generation. The carport will not be enclosed and will be used to store a crane. The carport is intended for storage purposes only. No new employees will be generated as a result. This application is required to undergo review under Growth Management because it is an addition to an essential public facility. Essential Public Facilities are assessed based on its unique employee needs. As an Essential Public Facility, staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission determine that no new employees are generated with the addition of the carport. The Planning and Zoning did, in fact, determine that no new employees were generated. It is the authority of the City Council to confirm that finding. STAFF REFERRALS: Only a few departments provided a response to this application. This project was reviewed by the Engineering Department, the Environmental Health Department, the Parks Department and the Fire DeparUnent. The Engineering Department found that the application did not have the information that they require for a complete review. The applicant will be required to submit a Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer when the building permit is submitted. The report must be approved by the City Engineer to meet approval conditions. The Environmental Health Department nor the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority have concerns with the remodel or the carport. They do have comments regarding the second portion of the application and the comments will be included at that time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the application is generally minor in nature. It is consistent with the final development approval of the Water Treatment Plant. It does not substantially change the exterior of the buildings and the same materials will be used. No employees are generated as a result of the new carport. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Specially Planned Area Amendment and the Growth Management Review. Revised 8/14/2009 Page 4 of 5 Figure 2: Existing Administrative Building CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: i RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance No. 18, Series of 2009. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Staff Findings Exhibit B -Resolution No. 10, Series of 2009, Planning and Zoning Commission Exhibit C -Application (Provided July 27`h, First Reading) Exhibit D -Supplement to the Application Revised 8/14/2009 Page 5 of 5 ~.~ ORDINANCE N0. 18, (SERIES OF 2009) AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND A SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT FOR THE REMODEL AND ADDITION OF A CARPORT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN WATER TREATMENT PLANT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 25, WATER PLANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 500 DOOLITTLE DRIVE ParcellD:2735-132-04-825 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department originally received an application from the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, requesting the City Council to approve Growth Management Review and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment and requests for approval of Special Review and 8040 Greenline Review from the Planning and Zoning Commission for the minor addition and remodeling of the Water Treatment Plant. The applicant proposed to remodel the facade and add an additional 1,200 square feet of office space to the administrative building and extend the eave of an existing building to create a carport; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested to bifurcate the application into two phases. As a result, the first phase of the application will include review for the remodel of the facade of the administrative building and the carport. The applicant requested that the City Council approve Growth Management Review and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment and that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve 8040 Greenline Review for the minor addition of the carport and remodeling of the faQade of the Water Treatment Plant; and, WHEREAS, Phase 2, which consists of constructing 1,200 square feet of additional office space will be reviewed at a later date; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Fire Protection District, Parks Department, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed SPA amendment, Growth Management Review, and 8040 Greenline Review and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 10, Series of 2009 to approve the 8040 Greenline Review and made a recommendation to Council to approve the SPA Amendment and the Growth Management Review on June 16`h, 2009; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the Public (P) Zone District with an SPA overlay and requires a amendment to make changes to the Final Development Order, pursuant to Section 26.440.090; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440 and 26.470 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review and Specially Planned Area amendment approvals may be granted by the Page I of 3 ~. . -~ ~. City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, Growth Management Review and Specially Planned Area amendment review requires a recommendation to Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing on June 16a', 2009 where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heazd; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development application as proposed and identified as Exhibit C of the July 14`h staff memo meets the review standazds for a Growth Management Review and a Specially Planned Area amendment to remodel the fapade and to extend the eave of another building to create a carport if certain conditions are adhered to. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED that the Aspen City Council approves the Growth Management Review and the Specially Planned Area Amendment Review for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant subject to the conditions listed in Section 3 below. Section 1: Growth Management Review Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council approves Growth Management Review for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and determines that the scope of this approval: new carport and facade remodel generates zero employees. Section 2: Specially Planned Area Amendment Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council approves the SPA amendment to remodel the facade of the administrative building and add a carport by extending an eave on an existing building for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado with the following conditions: The applicant is required to apply for a building permit and shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. Section 4: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance 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. Section 6: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Page 2 of 3 gym, ,., ...r Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 7: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held the 24 day of August, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, 15 days prior to which public notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2009. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of _, 2009 by a _ - vote. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A 26.470.090 Growth Mana¢ement Review Standards for Development of 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 carport and remodel are proposed to the City Water Treatment Plant City which is considered to be an essential public facility. The City Water Treatment Plant meets the water needs of the City. The carport will be used to store the city crane and the remodel the facade will improve the use of the accessibility ramps. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate or warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. Staff Findings: No mitigation is required for Phase 1 of this application. The remodel and the carport do not create any net leasable space nor generate any new employees. Phase 2 will be reviewed at a later date. Staff finds this criterion to be met. ,, ,, EXHIBIT A (Continued) In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Staff Findings: Currently, the site consists of an administrative building, storage buildings, plant buildings and ponds. The site is located beyond the Water Plant Affordable Housing and is isolated from other development by topographical features. The addition to the City Water Treatment Plant is a minor in nature relative to the size of the facilities. The additions consist of extending the roof eave on another building to create a carport to protect a crane and remodeling the front entry of the administration building. The Specially Planned Area (SPA) reflects the long term plans for the site and this proposal is consistent with the future goals. The original SPA allows for over 104,549 more square feet of buildings for this facility. The project meets the requirements for land use, height, density, architecture and landscaping. Staff feels that this proposal is compatible with the existing facilities, the intent of the SPA and the surrounding area. Stafffands this criterion to be met. 2. Whether sufTicient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Staff Findings: No increased impacts on the public facilities or roads are predicted. Staff finds thds criterion to be met. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff Findings: The parcel is suitable for development. The area where the buildings are situated is mostly level. There are no environmental constraints that would limit the construction of the carport or the facade remodel. The parcel is not located in the floodplain area or an area that is particularly steep. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public space. ,~ -A, "`.. ..,s Staff Findings: The proposed development will not have any impacts on the view planes or adverse environmental impacts. The carport will be located under an extension of an existing eave. The remodel of the facade will be finished with exterior treatments and roojlines to match the existing buildings. Because of the nature of the topography, the new additions will not be visible from adjacent properties. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Findings: The remodel and the addition of the carport do not contravene any of the goals or policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Findings: The Water Department has the funds to remodel the facade and construct the carport at this time. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040 (B)(2). Staff Findings: There are no slopes in excess of twenty percent where the addition is to be located. The increase in density is not applicable. Staff finds this criterion met. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Staff Findings: GMQS allotments are not required for Essential Public Facilities. Phase 1 of this application does not require any mitigation for the remodel or the carport as they do not increase net leasable space or generate new employees. This project requires growth management review. Staff finds this criterion met. ~(Hl P~l~ RESOLUTION N0. 10, (SERIES OF 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND A SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT AND APPROVING 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE REMODEL AND ADDITIONS TO THE CITY OF ASPEN WATER TREATMENT PLANT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 25, WATER PLANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 500 DOOLITTLE DRIVE ParcellD:2735-132-04-825 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department originally received an application from the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Growth Management Review and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment and requests for approval of Special Review and 8040 Greenline Review for the minor addition and remodeling of the Water Treatment Plant. The applicant proposed to remodel the fapade and add an additional 1,200 square feet of office space to the administrative building and extend the eave of an existing building to create a carport; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested to bifurcate the application into two phases. As a result, the first phase of the application will include review for the remodel of the fapade of the administrative building and the carport. The applicant requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Growth Management Review and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment and a request for approval of 8040 Greenline Review for the minor addition of the carport and remodeling of the facade of the Water Treatment Plant; and, WHEREAS, Phase 2, which consists of constructing 1,200 square feet of additional office space will be reviewed at a later date; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Fire Protection District, Parks Department, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed SPA amendment, Growth Management Review, and 8040 Greenline Review and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the Public (P) Zone District with an SPA overlay and requires a amendment to make changes to the Final Development Order, pursuant to Section 26.440.090; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is located at an elevation of approximately 8,150 - 8,170 feet above sea level and is subject to 8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.020, Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and Page 1 of 3 ,.~ ~~ ~~ WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440 and 26.470 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review and Specially Planned Area amendment approvals may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.430 and 26.435 of the Land Use Code, 8040 Greenline Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, Growth Management Review and Specially Planned Area amendment review for a recommendation to Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing on June 16`h, 2009 where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, 8040 Greenline review for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing on June 16`h, 2009 where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, an application was submitted for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant, which proposed on Lot 25, a remodel of the facade of the administrative building for accessibility and an extension of a roof eave on an existing building to create a carport. WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development application as proposed and identified as Exhibit A of the June 16`h staff memo meets the review standards for a Growth Management Review, a Specially Planned Area amendment, and 8040 Greenline Review if certain conditions are adhered to. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Growth Management Review and the Specially Planned Area Amendment Review for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and that the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the 8040 Greenline Review, subject to the conditions listed in Section 3 below. Section 1: Growth Management Review Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Growth Management Review for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and determines that the scope of this approval: new carport and fapade remodel generates zero employees. Section 2: Specially Planned Area Amendment Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the SPA amendment to remodel the facade of the administrative building and add a carport by extending Page 2 of 3 ~ ~ ,,,, ,~~, an eave on an existing building for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado with the following conditions: The applicant is required to apply for a building permit and shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. Section 3: 8040 Greenline Review Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for 8040 Greenline Review to remodel the fagade of the administrative building and add a carport by extending an eave on an existing building for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado subject to the following condition: a) A Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. On-site drainage is to be designed in accordance with the City of Aspen Engineering Design and Construction Standazds. IBC Section 3307.1 requires that provisions be made to control erosion. The City requires a plan that shows the location of erosion control measures, drainage patterns, and details of erosion control structures. The plan must include notes that describe how erosion control measures will be regularly maintained. The erosion control plan must show the location of mud racks, the location of water for washing tires and the retention of the wash water. Section 4: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 16`h, 2009 by a 5 - 0 vote. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Stan Gibbs, Vice-Chair EXHIBIT I: Approved Building Elevations Page 3 of 3 ~, y ~. ~ ""~ 1 ,.,~ ~~ <, zda~ ~~m. h WZf CFO` t~~1 V~== F. 3~ E RENO SMITH ^I ~. w,. ~m.o STORAGE BUILDING FAST ELEVATION ~SiTORAGE BUILDING NORTH ELEVATION _ A302 0 _-_ ~_: (l coveaeo caacxlrvc ~.~sss~. ' STORAGE BVILOING w/GARPORT PIAN_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ O ';:_ 3~ 0 isdo "F~m'~ h <~o° r,~- ~~ai ~~ 3S ~_ . RENO SMITH ~.~ -a~,.A 301 TO: FROM: THRU: DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: ~,' MEMORANDUM Mayor~Ireland and Aspen City Council Errin Evans, Current Planner VII a... Chris Bendon, Community Development Director / .!I/i In, July 14, 2009 July 27, 2009 RE: 500 Doolittle Drive, City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant - Specially Planned Area Amendment and Growth Management Quota System Review First Reading of Ordinance No. ~ 8 ,Series of 2009 Planning and Zoning Resolution No. 10, Series of 2009 APPLICANT (OWNER: Water Department, City of Aspen REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC LOCATION: Civic Address - 500 Doolittle Drive; Legal Description -Lot 25, Water Plant Affordable Housing, City of Aspen; Parcel Identification Number - 2735- 132-04-825 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Public (PUB) zone district with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay containing the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant facility. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to remodel the main office building while adding a carport to a second building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Aspen City Council approve the request for a Specially Planned Area Amendment and Growth Management Review. SUMMARY: On June 16`s, this application was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission, who approved the 8040 Greenline Review and made a recommendation to Council to approve the SPA Amendment and the Growth Management Quota System Review. Now before the Council are the SPA Amendment and the Growth Management Review for Council approval. Revised 7/20/2009 Page 1 of 5 E n n= eio i.om i.:w zoao FBe~ BACKGROUND: The City Water Treatment Plant is located at the end of Doolittle Drive off of Castle Creek Road. Currently the facility is comprised of several buildings and ponds that comprise of the City's water treatment plant. The applicant, the City of Aspen Utilities Department, proposes to remodel the administrative building and add a roof extension to create a carport on an existing building at the facility located at 500 Doolittle Drive (See Application - Exhibit B). Please note when you review the application, you will notice that the applicant would like to expand the existing office space by 1,200 square feet. This issue and the relevant reviews will be explored at a later date. Staff requests that the application be bifurcated and the approvals for the additional office space will be heard at a later date. The Water Treatment Plant SPA originally received approval by Council on July 22, 1996 by Ordinance No. 23 of Series 1996. Earlier, on June 16th, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the 8040 Greenline Review for the project and recommended that the Council approve the Specially Planned Area Amendment and the Growth Management Review. For the proposal before the Council at this time, two approvals are required. The required approvals for this proposal include a Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment and Growth Management Quota System Review. Revised 7/20/2009 Page 2 of 5 Figure 1: Vicinity Map ~ -~-, ~ ~. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the City Council to remodel the administrative building and a carport: • SPA Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.440.050 (A) Review Standards for a development in a Specially Planned Area. This application does not qualify for an administrative amendment. All modifications shall be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council. This proposal does qualify for Consolidated Review. In this case, the conceptual and final plans may be combined based on the limited scope of the project. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, may make a recommendation to the City Council for approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the SPA amendment. The City Council is the final authority. The Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation to Council on June 16`h to approve the amendment. • Growth Management Ouota System -Essential Public Facilities pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.090 4. Any development to an essential public facility requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to make a recommendation to the City Council for approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Growth Management Review. The City Council is the final authority. The Planning and Zoning Commission made a recommendation to Council on June 16`h to approve the review. • 8040 Greenline Review for any development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level as pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030 (C) 8040 Greenline Review Standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the 8040 Greenline Review on June 16`h. SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REVIEW: The applicant proposes to remodel the entrance to the building by extending the roof over the ramps and changing the configuration of the ramps. The Community Development staff believes that the proposed remodel and the carport extension are consistent with the intent of the approved final development plan for the Water Treatment Facilities. The changes proposed are relatively minor. The remodel to the front of the administrative building will be an improvement over the existing entrance. The accessibility ramps will be easier to use. No changes are proposed to the floor area at this time. The existing administrative building is shown below in Figure 2: Existing Administrative Building as seen when approaching the site through the gate from Doolittle Drive. Revised 7/20/2009 Page 3 of 5 ,.,,, ..> GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW: This application also requires growth management review for the new carport. The extension of the eaves of an existing building will not create any new employee generation. The carport will not be enclosed and will be used to store a crane. The carport is intended for storage purposes only. No new employees will be generated as a result. This application is required to undergo review under Growth Management because it is an addition to an essential public facility. Essential Public Facilities are assessed based on its unique employee needs. As an Essential Public Facility, staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission determine that no new employees aze generated with the addition of the carport. The Planning and Zoning did, in fact, determine that no new employees were generated. It is the authority of the City Council to confirm that finding. STAFF REFERRALS: Only a few departments provided a response to this application. This project was reviewed by the Engineering Department, the Environmental Health Department, the Parks Department and the Fire Department. The Engineering Department found that the application did not have the information that they require for a complete review. The applicant will be required to submit a Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer when the building permit is submitted. The report must be approved by the City Engineer to meet approval conditions. The Environmental Health Department nor the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority have concerns with the remodel or the carport. They do have comments regarding the second portion of the application and the comments will be included at that time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that the application is generally minor in nature. It is consistent with the final development approval of the Water Treatment Plant. It does not substantially change the exterior of the buildings and the same materials will be used. No employees are generated as a result of the new carport. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Specially Planned Area Amendment and the Growth Management Review. Revised 7/20/2009 Page 4 of 5 Figure 2: Existing Administrative Building CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. ~, Series of 2009, on first reading. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Staff Findings Exhibit B -Resolution No. ] 0, Series of 2009, Planning and Zoning Commission Exhibit C -Application Revised 7/20/2009 Page 5 of 5 ORDINANCE N0. ~, (SERIES OF 2009) -~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND A SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT FOR THE REMODEL AND ADDITION OF A CARPORT TO THE CITY OF ASPEN WATER TREATMENT PLANT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 25, WATER PLANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 500 DOOLITTLE DRIVE ParcellD: 2735-132-04-825 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department originally received an application from the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, requesting the City Council to approve Growth Management Review and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment and requests for approval of Special Review and 8040 Greenline Review from the Planning and Zoning Commission for the minor addition and remodeling of the Water Treatment Plant. The applicant proposed to remodel the facade and add an additional ],200 square feet of office space to the administrative building and extend the eave of an existing building to create a carport; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested to bifurcate the application into two phases. As a result, the first phase of the application will include review for the remodel of the facade of the administrative building and the carport. The applicant requested that the City Council approve Growth Management Review and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment and that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve 8040 Greenline Review for the minor addition of the carport and remodeling of the fagade of the Water Treatment Plant; and, WHEREAS, Phase 2, which consists of constructing 1,200 squaze feet of additional office space will be reviewed at a later date; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Fire Protection District, Pazks Department, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed SPA amendment, Growth Management Review, and 8040 Greenline Review and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 10, Series of 2009 to approve the 8040 Greenline Review and made a recommendation to Council to approve the SPA Amendment and the Growth Management Review on June 16`h, 2009; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the Public (P) Zone District with an SPA overlay and requires a amendment to make changes to the Final Development Order, pursuant to Section 26.440.090; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440 and 26.470 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review and Specially Planned Area amendment approvals may be granted by the Page 1 of 3 ~-. ~~ ~~ , City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, Growth Management Review and Specially Planned Area amendment review requires a recommendation to Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public heazing and this application was reviewed at a public heazing on June 16`h, 2009 where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that the development application as proposed and identified as Exhibit C of the July 14`h staff memo meets the review standazds for a Growth Management Review and a Specially Planned Area amendment to remodel the fapade and to extend the eave of another building to create a carport if certain conditions aze adhered to. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED that the Aspen City Council approves the Growth Management Review and the Specially Planned Area Amendment Review for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant subject to the conditions listed in Section 3 below. Section 1: Growth ManaHement Review Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council approves Growth Management Review for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and determines that the scope of this approval: new carport and fapade remodel generates zero employees. Section 2: Specially Planned Area Amendment Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City Council approves the SPA amendment to remodel the fapade of the administrative building and add a carport by extending an eave on an existing building for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado with the following conditions: The applicant is required to apply for a building permit and shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. Section 4• This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance 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. Section 6: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the approvals as herein awazded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Page 2 of 3 F ~~ / A, d Zoning Commission or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 7: A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held the day of _, 2009, in the City Council Chambers, 130 S. Galena, 15 days prior to which public notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2009. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of _, 2009 by a - vote. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John P. Worcester, City Attorney Page 3 of 3 r• '`~, ~ ~r EXHIBIT A 26.470.090 Growth Manaeement Review Standards for Development of Essential Public Facilities The development of an essential public facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning 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 carport and remodel are proposed to the City Water Treatment Plant City which is considered to be an essential public facility. The Ciry Water Treatment Plant meets the water needs of the City. The carport will be used to store the city crane and the remodel the facade will improve the use of the accessibility ramps. Staff finds this criterion to be met. b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate or warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. Staff Findings: No mitigation is required for Phase 1 of this application. The remodel and the carport do not create any net leasable space nor generate any new employees. Phase l will be reviewed at a later date. Stafffands this criterion to be met. .-. ,-~ w EXHIBIT A (Continued) 26.440.050 Review Standards for development in a Specially Planned Area In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Staff Findings.• Currently, the site consists of an administrative building, storage buildings, plant buildings and ponds. The site is located beyond the Water Plant Affordable Housing and is isolated from other development by topographical features. The addition to the City Water Treatment Plant is a minor in nature relative to the size of the facilities. The additions consist of extending the roof eave on another building to create a carport to protect a crane and remodeling the front entry of the administration building. The Specially Planned Area (SPA) reflects the long term plans for the site and this proposal is consistent with the future goals. The original SPA allows for over 104, 549 more square feet of buildings for this facility. The project meets the requirements for land use, height, density, architecture and landscaping. Staff feels that this proposal is compatible with the existing facilities, the intent of the SPA and the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Staff Findings.• No increased impacts on the public facilities or roads are predicted. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff Findings: The parcel is suitable for development. The area where the buildings are situated is mostly level. There are no environmental constraints that would limit the construction of the carport or the facade remodel. The parcel is not located in the floodplain area or an area that is particularly steep. Staff fznds this criterion to be met. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public space. .~i Staff Findings: The proposed development will not have any impacts on the view planes or adverse environmental impacts. The carport will be located under an extension of an existing eave. The remodel of the facade will be finished with exterior treatments and rooflines to match the existing buildings. Because of the nature of the topography, the new additions will not be visible from adjacent properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Findings: The remodel and the addition of the carport do not contravene any of the goals or policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Findings: The Water Department has the funds to remodel the facade and construct the carport at this time. Stafffands this criterion to be met. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040 (B)(2). Staff Findings: There are no slopes in excess of twenty percent where the addition is to be located The increase in density is not applicable. Staff finds this criterion met. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Staff Findings: GMQS allotments are not required for Essential Public Facilities. Phase 1 of this application does not require any mitigation for the remodel or the carport as they do not increase net leasable space or generate new employees. This project requires growth management review. Stafffnds this criterion met. ~,; ~k~Clcsrr 3 RESOLUTION N0. 10, (SERIES OF 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND A SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT AND APPROVING 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE REMODEL AND ADDITIONS TO THE CITY OF ASPEN WATER TREATMENT PLANT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 25, WATER PLANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 500 DOOLITTLE DRIVE Parce[ID: 2735-132-04-825 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department originally received an application from the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Growth Management Review and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment and requests for approval of Special Review and 8040 Greenline Review for the minor addition and remodeling of the Water Treatment Plant. The applicant proposed to remodel the facade and add an additional 1,200 square feet of office space to the administrative building and extend the eave of an existing building to create a carport; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested to bifurcate the application into two phases. As a result, the first phase of the application will include review for the remodel of the facade of the administrative building and the carport. The applicant requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Growth Management Review and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment and a request for approval of 8040 Greenline Review for the minor addition of the carport and remodeling of the facade of the Water Treatment Plant; and, WHEREAS, Phase 2, which consists of constructing 1,200 square feet of additional office space will be reviewed at a later date; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Fire Protection District, Parks Department, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed SPA amendment, Growth Management Review, and 8040 Greenline Review and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the Public (P) Zone District with an SPA overlay and requires a amendment to make changes to the Final Development Order, pursuant to Section 26.440.090; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is located at an elevation of approximately 8,150 - 8,170 feet above sea level and is subject to 8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.020, Environmentally Sensitive Areas; and Page I of 3 \/ v WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440 and 26.470 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review and Specially Planned Area amendment approvals may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public heazing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.430 and 26.435 of the Land Use Code, 8040 Greenline Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public heazing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, Growth Management Review and Specially Planned Area amendment review for a recommendation to Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public heazing and this application was reviewed at a public heazing on June 16`h, 2009 where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, 8040 Greenline review for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public heazing and this application was reviewed at a public heazing on June 16`s, 2009 where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heazd; and, WHEREAS, an application was submitted for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant, which proposed on Lot 25, a remodel of the fagade of the administrative building for accessibility and an extension of a roof eave on an existing building to create a carport. WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development application as proposed and identified as Exhibit A of the June 16`h staff memo meets the review standards for a Growth Management Review, a Specially Planned Area amendment, and 8040 Greenline Review if certain conditions aze adhered to. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Growth Management Review and the Specially Planned Area Amendment Review for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and that the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the 8040 Greenline Review, subject to the conditions listed in Section 3 below. Section 1: Growth Mana¢ement Review Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Growth Management Review for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and determines that the scope of this approval: new carport and facade remodel generates zero employees. Section 2: Specially Planned Area Amendment Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the SPA amendment to remodel the fagade of the administrative building and add a carport by extending Page 2 of 3 an eave on an existing building for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado with the following conditions: The applicant is required to apply for a building permit and shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. Section 3: 8040 Greenliue Review Pursuant to the procedures and standazds set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for 8040 Greenline Review to remodel the fagade of the administrative building and add a carport by extending an eave on an existing building for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado subject to the following condition: a) A Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. On-site drainage is to be designed in accordance with the City of Aspen Engineering Design and Construction Standards. IBC Section 3307.1 requires that provisions be made to control erosion. The City requires a plan that shows the location of erosion control measures, drainage patterns, and details of erosion control structures. The plan must include notes that describe how erosion control measures will be regularly maintained. The erosion control plan must show the location of mud racks, the location of water for washing tires and the retention of the wash water. Section 4: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regulaz meeting on June 16~h, 2009 by a 5 - 0 vote. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Stan Gibbs, Vice-Chair EXHIBIT 1: Approved Building Elevations Page 3 of 3 .~.. ~--. ~~ C MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: THRU: DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: Planning and Zoning Commission Errin Evans, Current Planner Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Director May 26, 2009 June 16, 2009 RE: 500 Doolittle Drive, City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant - Specially Planned Area Amendment, 8040 Greenline Review, and Growth Management Quota System Review APPLICANT /OWNER: Water Department, City of Aspen REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC LOCATION: Civic Address - 500 Doolittle Drive; Legal Description -Lot 25, Water Plant Affordable Housing, City of Aspen; Parcel Identification Number - 2735- 132-04-825 CURRENT ZONING tS: USE Located in the Public (PUB) zone district with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay containing the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant facility. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting to remodel the main office building while adding a carport to a second building. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the 8040 Greenline Review. Staff also recommends that the Commission make a recommendation to Council to approve the request for a Specially Planned Area amendment and Growth Management Review. SUMMARY: The Applicant requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve the 8040 Greenline Review and to make a recommendation to Council to approve the SPA Amendment and the Growth Management Revised 6/11/2009 Page 1 of 5 E,.., '^, ~, . > Legend Su bjed Parcel Roads City Bou nd arv 86t0 Greenllna 8oundery Figure 1: Vicinity Map N VV~E 0 nc. c10 1.020 L5N 2030 Feet BACKGROUND: The City Water Treatment Plant is located at the end of Doolittle Drive off of Castle Creek Road. Currently the facility is comprised of several buildings and ponds that comprise of the City's water treatment plant. The applicant, the City of Aspen Utilities Department, proposes to remodel the administrative building and add a roof extension to create a carport on an existing building at the facility located at 500 Doolittle Drive (See Application - Exhibit B). Please note when you review the application, you will notice that the applicant would like to expand the existing office space by 1,200 square feet. This issue and the relevant reviews will be explored at a later date. Staff requests that the application be bifurcated and the approvals for the additional office space will be heard at a later date. The Water Treatment Plant SPA originally received approval by Council on July 22, 1996 by Ordinance No. 23 of Series 1996. For the proposal before the Commission at this time, three different approvals are required. The required approvals for this proposal include a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment, Growth Management Quota System Review, and 8040 Greenline Review. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission to remodel the administrative building and a carport: Revised 6/11/2009 Page 2 of 5 ~ ~~ r • SPA Amendment pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.440.050 (A) Review Standards for a development in a Specially Planned Area. This application does not qualify for an administrative amendment. All modifications shall be approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council. This proposal does qualify for Consolidated Review. In this case, the conceptual and final plans may be combined based on the limited scope of the project. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public heazing, may make a recommendation to the City Council for approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the SPA amendment. The City Council is the final authority. • Grow[h Management Ouota System -Essential Public Facilities pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.470.090 4. Any development to an essential public facility requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, to make a recommendation to the City Council for approval, approval with conditions or disapproval of the Growth Management Review. The Citv Council is the final authority. • 8040 Greenline Review For any development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level as pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.030 (C) 8040 Greenline Review Standards. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review authority, who may approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request. SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REVIEW: The applicant proposes to remodel the entrance to the building by extending the roof over the ramps and changing the configuration of the ramps. The Community Development staff feel that the proposed remodel and the carport extension are consistent with the intent of the approved final development plan for the Water Treatment Facilities. The changes proposed are relatively minor. The remodel to the front of the administrative building will be an improvement over the existing entrance. The accessibility ramps will be easier to use. No changes aze proposed to the floor area at this time. The existing administrative building is shown below in Figure 2: Existing Administrative Building as seen when approaching the site through the gate from Doolittle Drive. Revised 6/11/2009 Page 3 of 5 Figure 2: Existing Administrative Building /'` '"` ,~. ~ .,~ GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW: This application also requires growth management review for the new carport. The extension of the eaves of an existing building will not create any new employee generation. The carport will not be enclosed and will be used to store a crane. The carport is intended for storage purposes only. No new employees will be generated as a result. This application is required to undergo review under Growth Management because it is an addition to an essential public facility. As an Essential Public Facility, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission determine that no new employees are generated with the addition of the carport. 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW: This project was reviewed for 8040 Greenline Review during the original approvals for the Specially Planned Amendment in 1996. The Geotech Study that was prepared at the time did not identify any hazazds azeas that would be a concern. The additions aze quite minor and will not create any adverse environmental impacts. The remodel of the fagade of the administration building consists only of rearranging the access ramps and extending the roof line. The new carport will be an extension of the eaves on an existing building. The applicant will be required to provide a Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report to be approved by the City Engineer. The additional impervious area from the eave expansion that will be created will be reviewed for the requirements for Storm Water Management when the building permit is submitted. This application meets the review standards for 8040 Greenline Review. STAFF REFERRALS: Only a few departments provided a response to this application. This project was reviewed by the Engineering Department, the Environmental Health Department, the Pazks Department and the Fire Department. The Engineering Department found that the application did not have the information that they require for a complete review. The applicant will be required to submit a Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer when the building permit is submitted. The report must be approved by the City Engineer to meet approval conditions. The Environmental Health Department nor the Aspen/Pitkin Housing Authority have concerns with the remodel or the carport. They do have comments regarding the second portion of the application and the comments will be included at that time. RECOMMENDATION: While reviewing the proposal, staff believes that the application is generally minor in nature. It is consistent with the final development approval of the Water Treatment Plant. It does not substantially change the exterior of the buildings and the same materials will be used. No employees are generated as a result of the new carport. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Council approve the Specially Planned Area Amendment and the Growth Management Review. Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the request for 8040 Greenline Review. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to approve the proposed amendments that they may use this motion "I move to approve Resolution No. Series of 2009, approving with conditions, the recommendations for the Growth Management Revised 6/11/2009 Page 4 of 5 ,-. .., Review and the Specially Planned Area amendment to Council and approving the requests for 8040 Greenline Review at 500 Doolittle Drive on the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant (Lot 25, Water Plant Affordable Housing)." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Staff Findings Exhibit B -Application Revised 6/11/2009 Page 5 of 5 ,~ ~ ~.,, , i RESOLUTION N0. OI (SERIES OF 2009) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW AND A SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT AND APPROVING 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW FOR THE REMODEL AND ADDITIONS TO THE CITY OF ASPEN WATER TREATMENT PLANT, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 25, WATER PLANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND COMMONLY DESCRIBED AS 500 DOOLITTLE DRIVE Parce/ID:2735-132-04-825 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department originally received an application from the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant, represented by Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning, requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Growth Management Review and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment and requests for approval of Special Review and 8040 Greenline Review for the minor addition and remodeling of the Water Treatment Plant. The applicant proposed to remodel the fapade and add an additional 1,200 square feet of office space to the administrative building and extend the eave of an existing building to create a carport; and, WHEREAS, the applicant has requested to bifurcate the application into two phases. As a result, the first phase of the application will include review for the remodel of the facade of the administrative building and the carport. The applicant requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Growth Management Review and a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment and a request for approval of 8040 Greenline Review for the minor addition of the carport and remodeling of the fagade of the Water Treatment Plant; and, WHEREAS, Phase 2, which consists of constructing 1,200 square feet of additional office space will be reviewed at a later date; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, Fire Protection District, Parks Department, as a result of the Development Review Committee meeting; and, WHEREAS, said referral agencies and the Aspen Community Development Department reviewed the proposed SPA amendment, Growth Management Review, and 8040 Greenline Review and recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the Public (P) Zone District with an SPA overlay and requires a amendment to make changes to the Final Development Order, pursuant to Section 26.440.090; and, WHEREAS, the proposed development is located at an elevation of approximately 8,150 - 8,170 feet above sea level and is subject to 8040 Greenline Review, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.020, Environmendally Sensitive Areas; and Page 1 of 4 .~ ~~,, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440 and 26.470 of the Land Use Code, Growth Management Review and Specially Planned Area amendment approvals may be granted by the City Council at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, and relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.430 and 26.435 of the Land Use Code, 8040 Greenline Review approvals may be granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing after considering recommendations by the Community Development Director, and relevant refenal agencies; and, WHEREAS, Growth Management Review and Specially Planned Area amendment review for a recommendation to Council by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing on June 16`h, 2009 where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, 8040 Greenline review for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires a public hearing and this application was reviewed at a public hearing on June 16`h, 2009 where the recommendations of the Community Development Director and comments from the public were heard; and, WHEREAS, an application was submitted for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant, which proposed on Lot 25, a remodel of the fapade of the administrative building for accessibility and an extension of a roof eave on an existing building to create a carport. WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the development application as proposed and identified as Exhibit A of the June 16`h staff memo meets the review standards for a Growth Management Review, a Specially Planned Area amendment, and 8040 Greenline Review if certain conditions are adhered to. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Growth Management Review and the Specially Planned Area Amendment Review for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant and that the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the 8040 Greenline Review, subject to the conditions listed in Section 1 below. Section 1: Growth Mana¢ement Review Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Growth Management Review for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado and determines that the scope of this approval: new carport and fagade remodel generates zero employees. Section 2: Specially Planned Area Amendment Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the SPA amendment to remodel the fagade of the administrative building and add a carport by extending Page 2 of 4 ,-~. ..,~ an eave on an existing building for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado with the following conditions: The applicant is required to apply for a building permit and shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. Section 3: 8040 Greenline Review Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the request for 8040 Greenline Review to remodel the facade of the administrative building and add a carport by extending an eave on an existing building for the project located at 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado subject to the following condition: a) A Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and Report stamped by a Colorado Professional Engineer. On-site drainage is to be designed in accordance with the City of Aspen Engineering Design and Construction Standazds. IBC Section 3307.1 requires that provisions be made to control erosion. The City requires a plan that shows the location of erosion control measures, drainage patterns, and details of erosion control structures. The plan must include notes that describe how erosion control measures will be regularly maintained. The erosion control plan must show the location of mud racks, the location of water for washing tires and the retention of the wash water. Section 4: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 16`h, 2009 by a - vote. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel LJ Erspamer, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Page 3 of 4 Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk EXHIBIT 1: Approved Building Elevations Page 4 of 4 e.+ ~.. EXHIBIT A 26.470.090 Growth Management Review Standards for Development of Essential Public Facilities The development of an essential public facility, upon a recommendation from the Planning and Zonin¢ Commission, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council based on the following criteria: a. The Community Development Director has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an essential public facility (see definition). Accessory uses may also be part of an essential public facility project. Staff Findings: The carport and remodel are proposed to the City Water Treatment Plant City which is considered to be an essential public facility. The Ciry Water Treatment Plant meets the water needs of the City. The carport will be used to store the city crane and the remodel the facade will improve the use of the accessibility ramps. Staff fords this criterion to be met. b. Upon a recommendation from the Community Development Director, the City Council may assess, waive or partially waive affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate or warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline, but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs, pursuant to Section 26.470.100, Calculations. Staff Findings: No mitigation is required for Phase 1 of this application. The remodel and the carport do not create any net leasable space nor generate any new employees. Phase 2 will be reviewed at a later date. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. EXHIBIT A (Continued) In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council must consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Staff Findings: Currently, the site consists of an administrative building, storage buildings, plant buildings and ponds. The site is located beyond the Water Plant Affordable Housing and is isolated from other development by topographical features. The addition to the City Water Treatment Plant is a minor in nature relative to the size of the facilities. The additions consist of extending the roof eave on another building to create a carport to protect a crane and remodeling the front entry of the administration building. The Specially Planned Area (SPA) reflects the long term plans for the site and this proposal is consistent with the future goals. The original SPA allows for over 104,549 more square feet of buildings for this facility. The project meets the requirements for land use, height, density, architecture and landscaping. Staff feels that this proposal is compatible with the existing facilities, the intent of the SPA and the surrounding area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Staff Findings: No increased impacts on the public facilities or roads are predicted. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff Findings: The parcel is suitable for development. The area where the buildings are situated is mostly level. There are no environmental constraints that would limit the construction of the carport or the fay~ade remodel. The parcel is not located in the floodplain area or an area that is particularly steep. Staff f nds this criterion to be met. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public space. Staff Findings: The proposed development will not have any impacts on the view planes or adverse environmental impacts. The carport will be located under an extension of an existing eave. The remodel of the facade will be fnished with exterior treatments and roojlines to match the existing buildings. Because of the nature of the topography, the new additions will not be visible from adjacent properties. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Findings: The remodel and the addition of the carport do not contravene any of the goals or policies of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Findings. The Water Department has the funds to remodel the facade and construct the carport at this time. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040 (B)(2). Staff Findings: There are no slopes in excess of twenty percent where the addition is to be located. The increase in density is not applicable. Staff finds this criterion met. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Staff Findings: GMQS allotments are not required for Essential Public Facilities. Phase 1 of this application does not require any mitigation for the remodel or the carport as they do not increase net leasable space or generate new employees. This project requires growth management review. Stafffinds this criterion met. HO4O GREENLINE REVIEW ,~-., ~. EXHIBIT A (continued) The provisions of 8040 Greenline Review shall apply to all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level in the City of Aspen, and all development within 150 feet below, as measured horizontally, the 8040 Greenline, unless exempted pursuant to Section 26.435.030 (B). Development on land located in the R-15B Zone District is not subject to the 8040 Greenline Review. C. 8040 Greenline Review Standards. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils, or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the city. Staff Findings: The areas for the proposed additions are suitable for development. The parcel was examined in greater detail when the Specially Planned Area was created for the entire Water Treatment facility. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical Inc. prepared a Geotech Report for the site. Environmental Audits for the site did not identify any known hazardous areas. The scope of this application does not exceed the original scope of the SPA. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects on water pollution: Staff Findings: Only the extension of the eave of the existing building for the creation of the carport will result in an increase in impervious area. The applicant is required to receive approval from the City Engineer of a drainage and erosion control plan and report when the Building Permit is submitted. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city. Staff Findings: There are no significant effects on the City air quality as a result of this project. The Environmental Health Department indicated that the trip generation for cars will not increase for Phase 1 of this project. There will be no increase in air pollution as a result of the carport and the remodel. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road, or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. Staff Findings: There are no proposed roads or trails with this application. The new remodel to the administrative building is compatible with the rest of the buildings and will not create adverse impacts for the neighboring properties. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. ,.. ~. . . 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. Staff Findings: The project will require minimal grading. The natural land features and the landscaping will not be affected. Stafffmds this criterion to be met. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. Staff Findings: The placement of the existing structures will not change. The open space and mountain views will be maintained and unaltered. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. Staff Findings: The buildings for this facility are located in a low spot that is not visible from the surrounding properties. The height of the remodel will not be greater than the rest of the administrative building. The extension of the roof eave to create the carport will be much lower than the existing building as well. Staff finds this criterion to be met. S. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development. Staff Findings: No additional utilities are required for the project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly maintained. Staff Findings: The existing road, Doolittle Drive is adequate for the current and for the proposed changes to the facility. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Staff Findings: The current access to the development meets the requirements for fire protection and snow removal. There are no proposed plans to alter the access at this time. Stafffnds this criterion to be met. 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical Staff Findings: This project is not applicable to the recommendations of the Area Community Plan: Parks/RecreationlTrails. Staff finds this criterion to be met. ~~ j + i ~ i w~ r-~xw~,~z davit (500 ~d-t~iLittl,P~ 1~rwe.) - ~lN A~LICArTON FOR: S~'y4 74 , C~ro~wt~v M . R~v%w for a~vv ~~,nt'~a.L ~u~l%c~ ~ , , , 8040 C~n~a~LiM.eiRe~v%e~w, ands speca',a.LRe~vi,~w for ~ark.~"~' su~MIrrf"v $Y zol N. MILL S7YR£f7', surr`f los ~AS~IV, COLOR~4~0 81611 (970) 925-7819 fa~1c~(970) 925-7395 rr~Laa~C~so~ri~: net' Marchs 2009 PID No.2735-132-04-825 .•. ~. .~-.. .~ AN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF SPA AMENDMENT, GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR PARKING FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN WATER TREATMENT PLANT Submitted by: The City of Aspen Public Works Department 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Prepared by: HAAS LAND PLANNING, I.LG Planning Consultants 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108 Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: (970) 925-7819 Fax: (970)925-7395 Email: mhaas@sopris.net PID No. 2735-132-04-525 ®~ a. ,..,. ~..~+ WATER TREATMENT PLANT APPLICATION TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................1 II. PROJECT SITE AND NEIGHBORHOOD (Existing Conditions) ....................2 III. THE PROPOSAL ............................................................................4 IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS ................................................................5 A. Amendment to the SPA .................................................................5 B. GMQS for Essential Public Facilities .................................................7 C. Special Review for Parking ...............................................................8 D. 8040 Greenline Review ................................................................9 Fieures/Maps Existing Conditions (between Pages 2 and 3): • Two sheets of an existing conditions/topographic map; • The 1984 SPA Map (Book 16, Page 6); • Five sheets from the 1997 SPA and Subdivision Final Plat (Book 41, Pages 41, 44, 45, 48 and 50); and • Three sheets of As-Built Floor Plans and Elevations for the Administration Building. The Proposal (between Pages 4 and 5): • Main Level Floor Plan (Sheet A 101); • Roof Plan (Sheet A 102); • South and East Elevations (Sheet A 201); • North and West Elevations (Sheet A 202); and • Storage Building/Carport Plan (Sheet A 301). Exhibits Exhibit 1: Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Forms Exhibit 2: Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit 3: Proof of Ownership Exhibit 4: Letter of Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC and Reno-Smith Architects, LLC to Represent the Applicant Exhibit 5: Mailing Addresses of Record for All Property Owners within 300 Feet Exhibit 6: Executed Agreement to Pay Form PID No. 2735-132-04-825 .~+, -~.. ~..~ I. INTRODUCTION This application requests approvals for an Amendment to the Approved SPA (Specially Planned Area) Plan for the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant (Lot 4, City Thomas Property Subdivision), Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, 8040 Greenline Review, and Special Review for Parking. These requests are needed to accommodate the proposed additions of a carport and office space at the City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant property. The request also involves remodeling the front entry area of the Administration Building. The application is submitted pursuant to Sections 26.440, 26.430, 26.515, 26.470.090, 26.710.250, 26.304, 26.310.040, and 26.435.030 of the Aspen Land Use Code (the Code) by Haas Land Planning, LLC on behalf of the City of Aspen (hereinafter "applicant"). The completed Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Forms are attached hereto as Exhibit 1. A Pre- Application Conference Summary prepared by Sara Adams, Plarmer, is attached as Exhibit 2. The City of Aspen is the owner of the property (see Proof of Ownership, Exhibit 3). Permission for Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP) to represent the applicant is attached as Exhibit 4. A list of property owners located within three-hundred feet of the property and an executed application fee agreement are attached as Exhibits 5 and 6, respectively. The application is divided into four sections. Section I provides a brief introduction to the application, while Section II describes the project site and neighborhood. Section III of the application outlines the applicant's proposed ~"~ development, and Section IV addresses the proposed development's compliance with the applicable review criteria of the Code. For the reviewer's convenience, ".3 all pertinent supporting documents relating to the project (e.g., proof of ;, ownership, etc.) are provided in the various exhibits to the application. While the applicant has attempted to address all relevant provisions of the Code, and to provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evaluation of the application, questions may arise which require further information and/or clarification. Upon request, the applicant will provide such additional information as may be required in the course of the application s review. - Watecplant Application Page 1 ~ ~ ~ II. PROJECT SITE & NEIGHBORHOOD (EXISTING CONDITIONS) The subject property is zoned Public (PUB). It has a Parcel Identification Number of 2735-132-04-825 and is located on Doolittle Drive, off of Castle Creek Road. This 49.7 acre property is legally described as a portion of Lot 25, Final Plat of City Thomas Property. The neighborhood includes the various Waterplant buildings, the Waterplace Affordable Housing project, and the Castle Ridge Townhomes, and is close to the Pitkin County Health and Human Services building and Aspen Valley Hospital. The residential neighborhood of Meadowood Subdivision (Unincorporated Pitkin County) is located to the West. _ ~ o ~~_ mR ~~, _ ~ ~~O ~ 1 ~ ~,,, ~ ; ~~~ O 5j r ~;~~ ~ ~~ 5 ~ ~1 IIIIEEEE .8 f _ _ q.;J vp i ~Q !~ O ~ 1 F+- ~4Mn~m, _~. ~~ ~C . . i n l cosu ~9us°°"-"s ... ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a. / v.~9` 1, ~ ~ _. ~ ~ ~ 1 ~r '~~ - ~ ~~!~~, f~ ~~ ~ ~~ 1~ ' ~ , 1 s:'~ F, ~ \~ OSLb EMPr1 Y¢ WY OAW MAV~~ v1NeAW Vicinity Map -City of Aspen Waterplant The approvals history and existing conditions of the site and structures are depicted in the plans provided herewith, including: two sheets of an existing conditions/topographic map; the 1984 SPA Map (Book 16, Page 6); five sheets from the 1997 SPA and Subdivision Final Plat (Book 41, Pages 41, 44, 45, 48 and 50); and three sheets of As-Built Floor Plans and Elevations for the Administration BuIlding. The property was originally known as Lot 4 of the City Thomas Property Subdivision. Ordinance No. 18 (Series of 1983) adopted the Specially Planned Area (SPA) for the City Water Treatment Plant, while Ordinance No. 7 (Series of 1984) amended the SPA and created a full site plan for the property. (See the attached copy of the 1984 SPA Map; Book 16, Page 6.) t t r f C Waterplant Application Page 2 vJ U z W Z W 1'Q ~.1~ O U L_ W w ~o 0 a ~a ~ WU O ~O ~ ~~ U ~ ~~ O=YLL ~... ~ h O a a~LLW J O ~ y _2 LL 2 ~ N ZU ~ ~ W a o ~a Z o ~o U a tW U Q LL O N O 9 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ a a Y o a~ B ~~S '~~'w~~ i~U~. UN~~ J ~ _ U p o~ N ~ ~ ^~ 1 ~ $d .~ ~L1 v C8 $ ~~~~~~r ~ a ~ @ R 5~ L U Z C ~ W o Q a W F- Z ^W f1 a ~.~. _~ U n: ~o O~ Fo ~O ~U ~~ ~O w~ ~~ =Yi ~ ~_ oar u O ~ ~ a~ 2z ~~ zo ~U O iZ M d r Q zLL 0 F- U vWi U O W a 0 a Q O H LL O H a J z N H O J z F- 0 Q ~~ ~~~ ~o~ ~ U i. muio ~0~ O ~~ s'. 3:SE+k r .~~ C3~' 'lac - ~ ~ =~''`~ {/^` ° ~:; rr oXy'~Py 'x~'g6.. k s i~ i E~.: / ~+~' s~ 1 I ffi ~"- ~; . , ~ a~~~ ' i s Erg=~. ~s~. ~ V ~ ~i~ ~~¢'L~.i r~~ g L ~' x ~ ~ = D - tt S a~ ~s gam. ~sa~~ ~ 3 =J~ a~ g.. i y ~g~~ » ~~- uu ~•.~" ~ g 4 }~~ l a ~~" _ { ` G ~~ .L ~~~ ~~~ ~g 7~ ~'u 3 - o^^A~ 5~5, o Gi S~ L - { I MA fl t n to ~l7 ; \ c \ ~` I IN ie v~ ~ ' fi \ ~~ Yi .. ..y^.. a s •- ~ a ~ ` ~, `\ fr-... . ~I~ \ X91}. \ .NQ= ~~.o c + .\ }sNO - • N f•~ff ~_ S ~ V < [l f„[L.6BN ~ p 'B f~B[ . ~ ] Y , ~Y/ ~ff Y„y e ~' r i ' • a~ N / f4c ~ u i r 'a §i ~+' ~ ~ i N ; i yam. R ~ M `111 < ~,. [ ~; ~/ ~I g~pp1 s I ~ // ~ +Ft z •Lw ~4e I ~ I ~~,,, :a .'; g I r a;; ;~ kf~ t: ,~a. I ~~ '.. ~ Qx ~{ ~~ ~I , \~j ~~ Fit ~/(~. ~i,11'`i ~~ ~ td c'•t~T~ ll'~~ ~~ _ ;. l~ 8 ~J ~' C '\! ~ ~ qa L ; ~;f '~^`~ i/ `' ~ "•' 3 r ,. ,~ / 3 eg s 9 ,.~.° :.~.~~ S ""X ~yy L• ~ . Ye~X rY ~ V~YfbW.:'f14~JIMi __.__ __. V ~ ~ F ~ a ~ ~~ g { ~ ~$ B~ tagga'~ 11 @ ~ ~ ~~~~~~s ~ a~ $ F 8~F ~ $ga"` aF ~ 8 $~ ~sg ~ dl € 5 ~F _ t ~€ ag ~ ~ c~ ~ a F ~ $ of ~~ ~ a ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~$di~~ ~ ~ .€ a ~a~~l$~. ~~ ~ € alt ~ ~Fa i ~ ~ ~F 8 a~ g ~a ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a $ ~ ;B ~ ' E~"- !a2 i~ a 3~ a. a ~ e 8 ¢~ a a a ~. ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ ~¢ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F'" L~ ~ 6 { S y v ~l ~ 0., y ~ $° ~4a ~. ~ 111 e{ ~ qy`~ ~ Yba ! 77jtt O. °~ ~~ ~ /~ " .vixv Sun, 8 t~~~~j d'~ ~ S~R ~Pd ~ L ~ "~ ~ ~y!~ ~ ~r ~'Xg/ / o~ ';R 6y€,$~~9 ~y~~ 6 ~ j'~L a ~` e~~ „% 3 ~. ' ~ ~i! ~ g y '+i ~ ~ is ~ L ~~R^ i Ri~ ~ ~ ~b z ~~, ! „~ a1 3Pn I.T1M SM96Y-B ~O vx,. R ~~e ~~~ ,~, ~~~ ~i ~~~ ,~ ~' ~ ~ ! I~a~! ,...:. w~; ~~. 4.,, r°- .. ~. ~. ~w4 ~a ~~~o ~~~~ ~wo~ o~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ 3~ ~~ '~ ~~ ~I •~ ~~dl ~~~ 8 ,, ~, ,~ >' ,- ;,~ ;', ~ , ~°L ~/~J I ~ ; ~ ~ ~ .~ . '~\ ~ ~' a i I ~r I I - - ~ ' ----- 'I `. ~ '-------- -- r i r-~ I ~~ / I ~~ `A I ~ I -- ~,~ I I I' ~, I. ~ \;1 . ;I . ~ s ',. I, ~~~9 ~ ~ _ ' '" f -- ~ ~ ~~ T=====___---:`\\' \ rr/, ...111 i1 1 ~~ YYY r I ~ ~\\\ ~ I i !~ '~~ r, _ ,, _ ,, i ~ - - --r r ~ ~ ' ,1 ,1~- --- ~, II ,. ,II ~ ~~ . ~, .. ~ ~~ I I I i ,~ >~r ~ ~~ i ~~' '~I; ' I~ I I~ i ,. , ,~; ~ ~ ,,, II /; '; I / i. ; i i i,l I ~' I / ~ I I I ~ ~ r %/I j Ir I i / .; I E ;l 'I I_._-._._._ 1~._ + -- ~~~ ~~ ~~ N ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ,I L I I ~I ~I ~II I I I~ ~~ ~I ~~ .. II .. .. II ~I II II ~~ 4 h h W 0 ti ~$ A y~yi~ W u 3 ~° ~i asa :Ie uel mm.n n w niu x-re~n~wmem:= yf... amore. ~.,. `~... '., ti Kj ~ ~ 11, ~`~ ~ ~' \ 4 1 „, ~ i Y ~ ~ ~, 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ l 1 _-. 1 1 ,'_~~~ 1 1 II _ _.._____.. _~ -_ -_____ .~. ~ :._ _ _ __ _ .. ~~- _- ._ I I - I I 1 I _ ---- -" - =~- __- __ _ _ _ ' I I I I 1 I 1 1 - 1 ___. , _~. ~. _- , y~ l l 1 1 ~.5 ~ .. ,, d ~i' ~; 1 /' ~ J} F I~! ~ ~ __- 1 'I is it p' 1/1+rN:~' II , / I ' II 9~i1/I >71 / 4/)~I~~S~I 11' ul II ~~ / r ~/~ /r,/~ I III ?I II H r n ~/ I ~nll~~ i ~ III ~d r~ I ~iJy' gl~l~i ~ ;r; rl 1 ~i ~ ~ I /i i I/ ~ /IA 1 II .r Ir II I 11 / I I / ii / / II I Ir 1 •f / ill I I I I I j a I ~~ ~! a K ~b~ ~~ V~ ~. ~~ i~ '.` ,.,.. 41Hh77~ .. ,... ~- ,;, '~, _-~.-~~ \ 1 _ _ _.. ,,.. "~.. I -~ Sri ~ IA ~l 1\ x ., \~\ ~~ ~•, ,~ ,~ ~ \~ ~. I ~.._ ,. ~~ _; , ,, '~ x ~ ~~ L 4 `... ~~tt ,,,, «' qY~1 %M '. -_,_9y sG liiW139M . y9 .etn p1rF/I mV 11 ~ .... M~ .97-.... ~ 11 '. -r3~v ~drasoNn ___ ~. ~~ //~i~,i// ~~~~~~ I~ ` °"" ~ F--_ °- r~ 1 ~ I ~ 1 1 C ,~ ~ ~ ^ / ~ 1 I ~ ~' i '^ 1 ~ 1 )Ah4r IIJ R aMU ml , 1 ,~,._ _ x „e - ~~I -' IAS.. ~ ..r°'au'K. ~~ 1 II 1 ~~ I ~` ~ ' ~ - ~ ~~~,~ 11 1~ &Yd g9AiYlp ~ I 1 . ~. ~'~ :° / '1 \\... ~1 ~~ ~ --- '~~ i r~; i ~ % 1 ~ 'I / 1 ' 1 „ 1 ~µyp 1 1 I \ ~ ~ ~\: ~ 1 ~~ i _ ~.\ ~ ' ;..`\~: i ~ _... 1 I 1 / I / y/ I A -_ 1 1 /I 1 _~ Y I _ 1 ~ / / I I 1~ __ ~ ~I/ /~ / / V \ \... . ` i ~ ,, I iA// _.~ -M M _ %~M~ 1 ~{0 \ } 1 pllo ~ I I 1 1 1 I / 1 ~ytY ~ I I b 1 5~ 1 1 ~ 1 ~~ H GGG ~N~N ~``~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 ' I ~~/ 11 I. I 1 1 I ~ I ~ bflA 1 1 1 1 ~ I 1 1 ~~~ I I 1 1, ~1 ~lo ;; i i.. ,a ;i, _.., III. 7<'/} ~ 11/'' 1 ' ~. 1' I. I. ,. I 'r 1 ... . ' I 1 .. .. . .. y.. ... .... {.. _ 1 I ... 1 I 1 ~.. 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 .. .... . ` w ~ ~ ~~ m ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 5 R "~ $~ N N 3~ ~~ ~3 ~m j ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,4 ~: ~~~~G4~~4444 4 ~~~ _------ ---_ _____~_~ __ '' o ~' M~ ~ I I I I I 1 j 11 q Y' (~ I i~~~~~~~ ,,. ~ _ \~ `~ _ ` \ `\~ `` ~_~' _`` ` _ ``` `` ` `\~`1 ````` ``~ `` 1 ~" _ ~,.,~. te..t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g ~~ ; ~ --- -----rxs--°- * - ~"`--- ---- - ~, to r / W - . -- -~ i ,~fr 4 / 1 1 / ~~ ~ ~ '\\ h ~ ~ _ e ~~l I AFL ~ F~ n ~~~1 ~\ ~~ ~~\~ ~~ a ~ i 1 G 1 I 1 I ~~ 1 .: , I , v 1 .. ,~ ~~i ~ ~ ~ ~ l 1 / ~ I Zd 1 /r ~ ` ~Y,. ~ 4=i`_l, ~ _ - • ~I 777 I j 1 ) ~ ~ I ~L F-~~ ~ ~ yy 1( u . ~~ 1. C I ~~ ! ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~7X~ ~ I `". ~ ~ _J~ L 1 ~~ it ~ J__ ~. $~ ~~ ~ '- ~1 1 ~ ~' ~ ~ ~~ r ` ~- ~ u 3~~ ~ '' _ - / .~ ~~ t ~ _ _ I _~ ., $~ ` 1 x. ~1 ~ ~ \ 1 $ ;?~ p ~ ~ ~' ~~ 1~ ~~ ~ y~~l~ s L ~~ ~ ~p~N f/ ~ S / I l ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ii ~ ~~.. i iJ by twe'poglpy,a -_. _. ,_ '---'--'~_ i /~ ~/ ,. ~ i I J / ! '~a~ h g r ~ _ -~ -"- -' -; ? .~., _ a g L ~ r I I r ~ ~ ~i ~ -S ~ ~~ ~ i k ~ / ~ ~ I L I ..~ ~ ~ i I / I ~ ~ ~~ ~ R nw wltrr .' i _~~ i ~ i ~ L Il4i ~i L _ L .~ r / -- ~ f,_ ~. ~.: N N p50 IB LFEI ll LI YI 9i W nYl 2LLI1~lbl\IYhI\BiT _ _ _ ~. m ..... _. y-jq~µry' _. .. _ _ _ .,.-xs__ .. _, ;~ s. .... I .Lxn, <' - n... ~. ~. ~,... ~A .. ~ ___ \ ~ : Irv.. ;.~a~o a~~~~~~.... ~Nimmea3eana~s~l~aoi~ : -. iqa ~ e+ba ~~~~~ 9NI011f18 N011tl2t1SINIfYQtl '' ~ ~ <- 1Mdld 1N3YYltl32ll ?13LtlM ~ ~ '' c ro coma SNOI1VA313 N3d5tl d0 ul~ ,:~,.~..,,~,,,.~,~„ r.m„ ~. (_._ \.... yh O 2 W W Q ,--~ } ~~ oK~~~nm~~ '~itl S 914Y6N0~ dd 5NOI1dA313 ~Nimina a3eena~s 31W01H~ 9NIUllf18 NpI1tl2llSINIWOtl'` ' 1Ntrld 1N3N11tl32ll N31tlM ~ ~ N3dStl ~ u~ 01111~INNNYI~I~~AM. 3'N1NN o srsxww ~ro nw I~LILII~L~ULII~`~ a~d~ ~~=l IIf nnnnnn ~ €~ay~45k ~$ W ~ JII ~~.1e6e6~~~ II II II II I~ I~ ~~ ~~ ~ :: (I W A t ~~g~~6gg~~~ w ~ ~1a~2~~Q oa ~ ~9 e1 f,"'. ~..- q Z W ~ ~ Q~ ~ p o 0 .s-,e .rie n-,or n 4, 6 } ` S O lip ~ W ._~ ~.. i-~~ ~ `~~~ O ~ t~ ~ ~t y •~ 1 .~ 1 ~e •_~ Y. $ e R ` ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ sd ~~ z i a ~ N E z w w ti J } Z ~ ~. ~~ c-. '~~ N ~Yz J 0 ~.1 ,.17. V, ._... Q5~ o b^ y G Z f/ ~x~ { w ~ ~, ~.}~+~`~. ale E a e~spR ~, rj .~.c ` ~ ~8~ ~ E Q- 1 ~, ' F ~4~ e~ w i Ige4 Z E ~~R ~ Z • ,i W g ~I ~ Q g ~~E Rgy d~4 ~~i i _~. III. THE PROPOSAL ,-. The City of Aspen Water Department is proposing to build a carport on the north end of the existing garage/storage building, in order to park and protect large equipment from the winter snowfall, and to add approximately 1,200 square feet of office space to the Administration Building. The carport addition will cover an existing paved parking/storage space. The office space addition will consume existing deck area only on the east/rear side of the Administration Building. Neither addition will have visual impacts of surrounding properties. The request also involves remodeling the front entry area of the Administration Building. This part of the remodel effort will involve removal of the existing wheelchair accessibility ramps and replacement with a lift, construction of a new front screen wall, and extension of the gable roof covering and protecting the stairs, lift and entry area. All of this work will take place on areas that are now paved. As mentioned earlier, after accounting for all of the existing structures on this property, there is more than 100,000 square feet of remaining Floor Area. The proposed development. will add no more than 3,000 square feet of additional Floor Area. The Water Treatment Plant is an Essential Public Facility. The proposed carport is an accessory use. The Water Department is seeking to add the proposed office space to accommodate existing employees; no new employees will be generated. The addition to the Administration Building requires an amendment to the SPA as well as growth management review for an Essential Public Facility. There is no codified annual allotment limit for Essential Public Facilities. The number of off-street parking spaces required for Essential Public Facilities is established by Special Review. The proposed development is also subject to 8040 Greenline Review, due to the elevation at the Waterplant. Page 4 - WateiplantApplication In 1996, the SPA was amended in order to create the Waterplace Affordable Housing project (Waterplace), which consists of 22 deed-restricted affordable housing units. Waterplace was subdivided out of the 54+ acre property, leaving 49.7 acres to the subject Waterplant property. The affordable housing utilized approximately 4.66 acres. (See the attached copies of five sheets from the 1997 SPA and Subdivision Final Plat; Book 41, Pages 41, 44, 45, 48 and 50.) In 1997 the Aspen Water Department applied to the City for an insubstantial amendment to the SPA for the purpose of relocating the storage building, relocating the administrative offices, and adding metal roofs to the east and west plant buildings. The Community Development Director granted the desired approvals as an insubstantial amendment to the SPA. (See the attached three sheets of As-Built Floor Plans and Elevations for the Administration Building.) When the SPA was originally created the total FAR allowed was .08:1, and the total size of the property was 54.36 acres. That means that a total of 189,434 square feet of Floor Area was allowed (54.36 x 43,560 = 2,367,922 x .08 = 189,434) Even if the largest permissible Lot Area reduction of twenty-five percent (25%) is applied, there would still be a total of 142,075 square feet of Floor Area allowed. There currently exists approximately 37,526 square feet of Floor Area between the Water Treatment Plant campus and the Waterplace Affordable Housing as follows: Total Floor Area of Waterplace Housing Units = 21,290sf Total Garage floor area after exemption =163sf Additional unit on the Waterplace Housing Parcel =1,OQOsf Garage Building on Water Department Campus =1,120sf Administrafion Office Building = 2,156sf Tank Storage = 551sf Storage Building #2 = 4,256sf West Plant = 3,392sf East Plant = 3,598sf Total = 37,526sf This leaves at least 104,549 square feet of remaining Floor Area for the property (142,075sf minus 37,526sf). Wa[erplant Application Page 3 ~ a ~ oavxozoo `xaasv N ~ ° ~ ~ruQ~nng uois~xis~a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g c N a .LAi~v'Id ,LNId~.L~'~I.L 2I'3.L~AA ~ 4444 ~ ~ ~ ~ T g ISddsV 30 A.LI~ C O U ~•~ Pa a ~R~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ &i ~ Z 333 i! CC ~~~i~iiiii99 k C ~ ~ C r ~~ m ~ O ~Y Q W ~N9 N O Z ~ ~$~~~~ ~m ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ; Z O 2 NF Z 1'S¢02Z0 ~ ~ ~ OQ~RIO'IO~ `AIddSV ~AIIQ'IIflg AiOI,i.~I.LSIAIII~QQV ~ ~ o C m " ~ ~ ~ .LNI~'Id .LAidZ1i,LV~I.L iI~.L~h1 ~ aaaa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ AI~dS~301i.LIa a- a-- -r-„ou»®wr~-- ~~a.:~'~--~ ~~-- - - ,: ~33 5'$gg 3i N ~ ~=~ ~~8° ~ 7~ ~s8° E 7~ ~! @ C .. ~< 8 ~~ ~ ~~ Z g a 0 0 ~ .~ z g a O O ~ e` ~ ~ z ~ z § z r q. q ~ ~ ~ ~ a oavxozo~ `xaasv ~AiIQ'IIf1H NiOI.LE'N.LSII~QQV .LAtV'Id .LNt~1i.L~dZI.L 2Id.L~'M ~ ~ ~ aaaa € ~ ; ~ ~ M o NiddSV 301i.LI~ z 0 a w J W d~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~=~ ~ ~ ~ 7~ ~a~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ N 0 m ~~~a ~ A~ zga~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9b ~ ~ Y 3 m 3 . ~~ ~ t'1 P g O41 LL~ lO/'1~l~dS a ;; ~, ~ `JNIIQ'IIf1g AiOLLE~IZSII~IIL1iQV ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m A ~ ~ .rxv~a .I.x~sv~xs x~ivm ~ 4444 ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ AiddS~'301[.LI~ ~+ ~y ~ Z Ste' ~~ N O ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 Q, a< ~ ~ ~z z O a w J W U P, ~ ~ e z r ~ ~~ ~aaaa ~;~~~s ,. ~~ ~1-' oavxozoa`u~asv JAiIQ'IIRg AIOII,~,LSIAIILQQV srtvza ,Lri~IAi,I.~~I.I. IIda[,~'AA ri~dSV 301i1.IR LL N O Z U Q a w w 0 U C7 Z O J_ ~,q~ CD Q-~$) W ~ (~ ~~ ~~ Z z ~ ~m~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ,~.. c s IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS The applicable review standards of the Code are addressed in this section of the application and in the following order: A) Amendment to the SPA (§26.440); B) GMQS for Essential Public Facilities (§26.470.090.4); C) Special Review for Parking (§26.430 and §26.515); and D) 8040 Greenline Review (§26.435.030). A. Amendment to the SPA Section 26.440.050 of the Code provides the standards that must be considered when development is proposed in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). These standards are presented below in italicized print and each is followed by a response. 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with ar enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. The density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping, and open space associated with this development are all compatible with the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel. The carport will simply cover a pad already used for large vehicle storage, while the new office space will be an addition to the rear of the existing Water Department Administration Building. The front entry remodel will take place on an already developed and/or paved area. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the carport and the additional office space. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mudflozv, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. The pazcel is already developed and, thus, suitable for development. The carport and the additions to the Administration Building will not involve any Waterplant Application Page 5 ~^ ,-', new disturbances of land; rather these additions will add to the current footprints of development. The carport will be built over an existing parking area, while the addition will be built in place of an existing deck that has foundation walls. The front entry remodel will take place on an already developed and/or paved area. These additions are not affected by hazards associated with slopes, ground instability, mudflow, rack falls, avalanches, or flooding. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental , impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Please see the responses to the above standards. With a proposal of this simple nature, sensitivity has taken the place of creativity. s' fl 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area tl Comprehensive Plan. 11 The proposed development is in compliance with the AACP. The Water ( „ Plant serves an important public need, and the carport and additional office f i, space are necessary incidental uses. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive f f f public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel or the surrounding neighborhood. ~ ~ Q. i Excessive public funds will not be required for this development. f i Funding is already in place. 1'f 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty percent (20%) (•~ meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Subsection 26.445.040.B.2. ~'m No development will be taking place on slopes in excess of twenty percent E" (20%). 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. As stated in Section 26.470.030(D), there is no annual GMQS allotment limit for essential public facilities. This development involves an essential public facility, as explained in the Section B below. ~ E~'1k .+, .. . Waterplant Application Page 6 . <- .~.. .«, ~" /~A~ f ~'~ '~\ ` r B. GMQS for Essential Public Facilities Section 26.470.090.4 of the Code provides for Growth Management Review of Essential Public Facilities. Additionally, Section 26.470.030(D) of the Code establishes that there is no annual limit to allotments for Essential Public Facilities. If the Community Development Director (CDD) has determined the primary use and/or structure to be an Essential Public Facility, then the City Council may approve the development. Essential public facility is defined in the code as, "A facility which serves an essential public purpose, is available for use by, or benefit of the general public and serves the needs of the community." Accessory uses are an incidental part of an Essential Public Facility project. The Water Treatment Plant is an essential public facility as it serves an essential public purpose, benefits the general public and serves the needs of the community. The proposed carport and additional floor area in the Administration Building should be considered incidental, accessory uses/structures. The City Water Department is seeking to add office space to accommodate existing employees; this will not generate any new/additional employees. Section 26.470.090.4(b) states that, 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. Section 26.470.100 of the Code contains the employee generation table. In the Public zone district the number of employees generated per 1,000 square feet of net leasable space is listed as 3.9. Using that number, the employee generation .,. for 1,200 square feet of additional office space would be 4.68 Full Time Equivalents (FTE). However, footnote number 8 to this table states that each ~' Essential Public Facility proposal shall be evaluated for actual employee :~ generation. ,. ,,. In terms of actual employee generation, the Water Department will not be adding any additional employees as a result of this office space expansion. Waterplant Application Page 7 ~ """" Instead, existing CORE employees need, and will occupy this new office space. Accordingly, the applicant is requesting that the City Council waive any affordable housing mitigation requirements for this development. C. Special Review for Pazking Special Review is governed by Section 26.430 of the Code. More specifically, Section 26.430.030(D) of the Code states that, "Whenever a special review is conducted to determine a change in the number of off-street parking requirements, it shall be considered in accordance with the standards set forth in Chapter 26.515." Section 26.515.030 of the Code charts the number of off-street parking spaces required for all types of development, and notes that for Essential Public Facilities the requirement is to be established by Special Review according to the review criteria of Section 26.515.040. Those standards are listed below in italicized print, with each followed by a response. 1. The parking needs of the residents, customers, guests and employees of the project have been met, taking into account potential uses of the parcel, the projected traffic generation of the project, any shared parking opportunities, expected schedule of parking demands, the projected impacts on the on-street parking of the neighborhood, the proximity to mass transit routes and the dozuntozun area and any special services, such as vans, provided for residents, guests and employees. The off-street parking that currently exists for the Waterplant buildings will continue to be sufficient. The proposed development will not generate any additional employees, residents, guests or customers and ample parking is available on the site. _ 2. An on-site parking solution meeting the requirement is practically difficult or results in an undesirable development scenario. On-site parking is already adequate for the existing and proposed development. There is no established requirement and, thus, no need to demonstrate a practical difficulty or undesirable scenario. 3. Existing or planned on-site or off-site parking facilities adequately serve the needs of the development, including the availability of street parking. Existing parking adequately serves the needs of the development. Waterplant Application Page 8 D. 8040 Greenline Review Certain land areas within the City of Aspen are considered to be Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) and are subject to the heightened review procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 26.435 of the Code. Section 26.435.030 of the Code states that all development located at or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) and all development within one hundred fifty (150) feet below, as measured horizontally, are subject to 8040 Greenline review in order to reduce impacts on the natural watershed and surface runoff, minimize air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche, ensure availability of utilities and to keep disturbance to existing terrain and natural land features to a minimum. Since the subject property is located within 150 horizontal feet of the 8040' elevation, and the proposed carport and additional office space fall under the codified definition of "development," this application is subject to 8040 Greenline Review. The 8040 Greenline Review standards from Section 26.435.030(C) of the Code are provided below in italicized print and each is followed by a response. The proposed development must comply with all of the standards. 1. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering its slope, ground stability characteristics, including mine subsidence and the possibility of mudflozv, rock falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is found to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize and revegetate the soils or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable to the City. All parts of the proposed development will take place on previously disturbed land. No addition to the footprint of any structures is being proposed onto raw/undeveloped land. The carport and the additional office space are located above a parking area and a deck, respectively. The front entry remodel will take place on an already developed and/or paved area. These areas are not ~ affected by any of the above-cited hazard types. 2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed, runoff, drainage, soil erosion or have consequent effects of water pollution. The proposed development will have no adverse affect on any of the items listed in the above standard. Wateiplant Application Page 9 3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the City. There will be no adverse affect on air quality 4. The design and location of any proposed development, road or trail is compatible with the terrain on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located. As mentioned throughout this application, all parts of this "development" will be taking place on previously disturbed ground. 5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable, disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural land features. There will be no significant grading necessary for the proposed development, and no disturbance of vegetation or natural land features. 6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading, maintain open space and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource. All structures have already been placed. No new structure is being added to the property. Foundation walls necessary for the office space addition already exist. 7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the structure will be designed to blend into the open character of the mountain. The heights of the structures are being maintained. The carport will be an extension of an existing roofline and the addition to the Administration Building will not result in that building being any taller than is already the case. 8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to seruice the proposed development. No additional utilities will be needed for the proposed development. 9. Adequate roads are available to serue the proposed development and said roads can be properly maintained. The existing roads are adequate to serve the proposed development. 10. Adequate ingress and egress is available to the proposed development so as to ensure adequate access for fire protection and snow removal equipment. Adequate ingress and egress currently exists on the pazcel and such will continue to be adequate. Waterplant Application Page 10 .~. 11. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Trails Plan are implemented in the proposed development, to the greatest extent practical. (Ord. No. 55-2000, § 7) The recommendations of the AACP with respect to Parks, Recreation and Trails are inapplicable to the current proposal. That said, nothing about this proposal runs counter to the recommendations of the AACP. Waterplant Application Page I1 EXHIBITS Exhibit l: Land Use Application and Dimensional Requirements Forms Exhibit 2: Pre-Application Conference Summary Exhibit 3: Proof of Ownership Exhibit 4: Letter of Authorization for Haas Land Planning, LLC and Reno-Smith Architects, LLC to Represent the Applicant Exhibit 5: Mailing Addresses of Record for All Property Owners within 300 Feet Exhibit 6: Executed Agreement to Pay Form PID No. 2735-132-04-825 v LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: Name: r ~ (1 /7rr^ert~ Location: ~~3~ J (rct'~e rt 0. J"f. S/3Q /t~ ['() ~~G1 (Indicate street address lot & block number legal description where appropriate) Pnrcel /n # (RF.QL~IRli1)) ,~~] ~rj- /~a - [1 ~ - S{a ~ Name: Address: Phone #: Name: ~/l~~P ~ ~(~° ~1~rn~//``t~ Address: 5 Q~ /~ o o l~ 777 Phone#: 9aa' S~~l TvnF nF Arn~.~rer~nN• fr,lracr rhrrk all that annlvl~ .a. l~V\c~ ~JI d/I Y)t vl r . fir, l1 sfi. Sit , k~ -70/!7 (7 ^ Conditional Use Special Review -Pa, k ~ h ^ Design Review Appeal f~ GMQS Allotment ^ GMQS Exemption ® ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane ^ Lot Split ^ Conceptual PUD ^ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ^ Conceptual SPA ® Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ^ Subdivision ^ Subdivision Exemption (includes condominimnization) ^ 'Temporary Use _ ^ Other: ^ TexUMap Amendment ^ Conceptual Historic Devt. ^ Final Historic Development ^ Minor HistoricDevt. ^ Historic Demolition ^ Historic Designation ^ Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion of PROPOSAL: C1./) ~ t c ~ 5 1'n C~ (;c (~G'~ I h G `" f-~ YVt I .S 11 t~Y1 Aaye you attached c t'ollowinR? FEES DUE: $ ~" re-Application Conference Sutmnary [attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement ~esponse to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards All plans That are larger than 8.5" x I1^ must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of ell written text (Aficrosoft Word Formaq must Fm submitted as pert of the application. r r^ Project: Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: ^1 (tor the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lo[ Area may be reduced for areas f within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the , definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Proposed: ; Number of residential units: Existing: n/ ~` Proposed: {~//A t Number of bedrooms: Existing: ~ ~i Proposed.• /'///i Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): ( 9 DIMENSIONS: ~~~ ~l~ ~ J ~~ ~ I Floor Area: Existing: ~Allowab[e~~6~Proposed.-~-' ~~ 5:2~, , ,I7CR1v6F~ e / Principal bldg. height: Existing: ~i -~• Allowable:' . o~S• Proposed: oZ5 -tf Cfn{itt?6E~ 1 i Access. bldg. height: Existing: ' - ~ F't?Allowahle: UfJ CifiiV Proposed: t~D OtitfnlL~ t , On-Site parking: Existing:> ^Stl:~ eyuired: t'RCrS Proposed.•? ~ - Cc~ I Site coverage: Existing: !);1_SfECihitbReyuired: ~/~r1 Proposed: N q t I Open Space: Existing: Ut4~ Gnc~eyuired' N~ Proposed: n r~ f Front Setback: Existing: ~~s~~ Reyuired: ~` ~ Proposed.• >1{5U~ 1 @ Rear Setback: Existing: > ~~ Reyuired.~1 Proposed: > 9~~ t Combined F/R: Existing.• ~ ~(~(, r ~ Reyuired: tJ/a Proposed: >~ I Asp. Side Setback: Existin > ~: ^'~~f( Required:~1~, Proposed:^'~ I ~,~tiS~T Side Setback: Existing: N ~,(~1 Required: ~(, 1Propos•ed: ^'(p ~ r ~ f l' Combined Sides: Existing: ^'xi{L Required:~~ Proposed: ~~ Existing non-conformities or encroachments: fJ ~/~ Cs~A Ti,RNI Variations requested: N ,~~ ,~b „~, ATTACHMENT 2 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM .~-~* r ~. ~..: CITY OF ASPEN PRE•APPLICATIONCQNFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Sara Adams, (970) 429-2778 DATE: 7.9.08 PROJECT: City of Aspen Water Treatment Plant REPRESENTATIVE: John Hines, Utildies Engineer, Crty of Aspen Public UtilAios 429-1999 TYPE OF APPLICATION: SPA Amendment, Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, 8040 Greenline Review, Special Review for Parking, Condiional Use Review DESCRIPTION: The Water Treatment Plant is located at the top of DoolGtk Drive, accessed oft Castle Creek Road. Ordinanre 18, Series of 1983 rezoned the propedy Publk (PUB) v~ith a Specially Planned Area (SPA} overlay. 11ie SPA approved a site specific plan that set the area and bulk requaemenLs for the parcel. Otv records show a few amendments to the SPA plan in the 1980s and 1990s (i.e. Ordinance 7, Series of 1984 and Ordinance 23, Sedes of 1996). We recommend that you research the SPA approval and amendments and provide a history of the approvals granted to the property in the Land Use application. It is my understanding Utai the Water Treatment Plant would like to add approximately 1,200 square feet of new net leasable area to be used as an officelwork space and posstrly a new exterior deck. PROCESS: Adding new square footage to the building requires an SPA amendmerri and Grow[h Management Review for an Essential Public facility. These reviews occur at the Planning and Zoning Commission and Crty Council. Council has final authority over both reviews. As part of the Growth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility, the applicant is required to provide affordable housing information regarding the rwmber of employees gerrgated by the new additon. Section 26.470JIX1 of the Municipal Code coNains an employee generation table. This calculation is used as a guide in determinrtuJ employee mitigation tlurvrg the Essential Publk Facility review. The PUB zone disUip allows affordable horsing as a condNOnal use; therefore if empbyee housing rs provided on site, tf>err a Conditional Use review is requited for the new housing. The Planning and Zoning Commission has ptxview over Conditional Use review. Special Review for parking is required for expansion of existing devebpmenl. Due to the elevation of the Water Plant, 8040 Greenline review is required for an addition ar an environmentally sensRive area. Both reviews are undea the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The IimAed scope of the project permits the Community Development Director to consolidate the revew process irno two reviews (instead of four): S~ One: Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing: SPA amendment recommendation m Crty Council; Growth Management Review fa an Essential Public Facrt'Ay recommendatwn to City Council: Special Review for Parking, 8040 Greenline Review, and if applicable, Conditional Use review for a0ordable housing in the PUB zone district. 555 Two: C8y Council Public Hearing: SPA amendment review, Growrth Management Review for an Essential Public Facility. _„ r Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 26.425 26.430 26.435.030 26.440 26.470.090.4 26.470.100 Common Development Review Procedures Conditional Uses Special Review 8040 Greenline Review Specially Planned Area (SPA) Growth Management Review for and Essential Public Facility Calculations .w ~'"' ,^~ 26.515 Off-Street Parking 26.710.250 Publie Zone District (PUB) Review by: P&Z and Cdy Council Public Hearing: P&Z and Second Reading far City Council Referral Agencies: Engineering, Housing, Parks, Parking, Water Planning Fees: E2,940 (Major Development Application) Referral Agency Fees: Engineering (E212), Housing (8212), Parks (E212), Parking, Water Total Deposit: E 3,576. To apply, submit the following information: 1. Proof of ownership with payment. 2. Signed fee agreement (all applications) 3. Completed City of Aspen application form (all applications). 4. Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant, which states the name, address and telephone number of the representative authorized to aU on behalf of the applicant. 5. Street address and legal description o(the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages,judgments. I'~ens, easemenLS, contraUS and agreements affecting the parcel, and dernonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 6. Total deposit far review of the application. 7. ie. 23 Copies of the complete application packet and maps. HPC =12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+S; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 11ea.; Planning Staff =1 6. An 8 112- by 11-vicinity map locating the parcel within the Cky of Aspen. 9. Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of Colorado. (This requiement, or any part thereof, maybe waived by the Commundy DevelopmerN Oepartmenl if the projeU is determined not to warrant a survey document.) 10. A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed developmem complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include existing conditions as well as proposed. 11. List of adjacent property owners within 300' (or public hearing. The GIS department can provide this list on mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453 12. Copies of prior approvals. 13. Applications shall be provided in paper formal (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on a CompaU Disk (CD). Microsoft Word formal is preferred. Text formal easily convertib~ to Word is acceptable. A 3-D rendering of the design proposal in SketchUp shall be included on the CD. Disclaimer: The foregoirtg summary is advisory in nattrc only arxl is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual represenlal'ans that may or may rat be accurate. The summary does rat create a legal or vested right Parcel Detail lmp: //w ww. p i tk i na or Pitkin County Assessor/Trea~ui C,< Parcel Detail Information Assessor/'T'reasurer Propertv Search ~ Assessor Subset Query ~ Assessor Sales Search Clerk & Recorder Reception Search Basic Buildin>; Characteristics ~ Tax Information Parcel Detail ~ Value Detail ~ Sales Detail ~ Residential/Commercial Improvement Detail. Land Detail ~ Photoeraphs Tax Area Account Number ~ Parcel Number 'I 2007 Mill Levy 001 R016346 273513204825 ~ 29317 Owner Name and Address OF ASPEN '~ATTN FINANCE DEPT 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 Legal Description dSUB:WATER PLAN"I' AFFORDABLE HOUSING I Location Physical Address: 500 DOOLITTLE DR ASPEN Subdivision• ' WATER PLANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING Land Acres: 49.705 Land Sq Ft: 0 2008 Property Tax Valuation Information Actual Value I Assessed Value 1 oft 3/172009 11:16 AM Parcel Detail. ~ http://www.pitltiress^~r.org/assessor/parcel.asp?ParcelNumber-27.. Land:' Improvements: Total: Sale Date:' Sale Price: Basic Building Characteristics Number of Residential'. 0 Buildings: Number of Comm/Ind Buildings: '~ No Building Records Found Tax Information No Tax Records Found of Paae Assessor Database Search Options ~ Treasurer Database Search Options Pitkin County Home Pape The Pitkin County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, Good Tums Software and the Pitkin County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein contained. Copyright ©2008 Good Tums Software. All Rights Reserved. Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software. 2 oft 3/17/2009 11:16 AM March 13, 2009 Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 .~, Re: Water Treatment Plant Land Use Application To whom it may concern: ' Haas Land Planning, LLC (HLP), and Reno-Smith Architects, LLC (RSA) are hereby authorized to act as the designated and authorized representatives with respect to the land use application being submitted to your office for the Water Treatment Plant located on Doolittle Drive (Parcel ID No. 2735-132-04-825). HLP and RSA are authorized to submit an application for an SPA Amendment, Growth Management Review, 8040 Greenline Review, Special Review for Parking, and any other incidental reviews. HLP and RSA are also authorized to represent the City of Aspen Water Department in meetings with City staff, boards, and commissions. Should you have any need to contact me during the course of your review, please do so through Haas Land Planning, LLC, whose contact information is provided in the application. Sincerely, ~. Phil Overeyn Public Wor s Dir ctor, City of Aspen 1~ S.Ga~~~~-r.,R~a,Cc~ ~~~u ;..., >, =~3 i ~ ri , ALEXANDER JOAN P ANDERSON TIM "x~`'t' ~*~ ~'~-„~ `' BERGMAN CARL R & CATHERINE M 739 25RD - t 1 E WATER PLAC PO BOX 1385 GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 61612 BLOEMSMA PHILIP CASTLE RIDGE ASSOCIATES LTD CHRISTIAN RONALD E & JOY R 0074 TWIN RIDGE DR C1O HILL MANAGEMENT CO 18 W WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 95 gSPEN, CO 81611 ST ANN, MO 63074 CITY OF ASPEN CLUB PROPERTIES INC CONSUEGRA LINDA ATTN FINANCE DEPT 1 GROVE ISLE DR #1501 10 E WATER PLACE 130 S GALENA ST MIAMI, FL 33133 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CRIMMEL WILLIAM & PETRA CROOK ROBERT 8 CROSS SUSAN K 323 GROVE CT 7 E WATER PLACE 242 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81811 CROWLEY JAMES P III DAKS FAMILY TRUST DAVIS DANIEL L & BRENDA L 21 W WATER PLACE 889 S STARWOOD DR 3 E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DESGEORGES JOHN DILBECK JASON DUFFEY MARY A 99.009% 202 GROVE CT GIBSONE ALEXANDER SCOTT BERLEY DAVID B.001% ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 8321 PO BOX 3652 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 FABROCINI ROBERT FRISSELLE FAM TRUST.50% GOLDSBOROUGH NEAL PO BOX 10820 ARBURY DOROTHY D TRUST 50% 4 E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81612 123 LARKSPUR LN ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 , GREGG JASON A & URSULA M HAGERTY KEVIN JOHN & ELIZABETH B HARDER DEBORAH H 860 MOORE DR 15 E WATER PLACE 109 TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 87611 ASPEN, CO 81611 HEGER FRANK & CARLA KELLY KATHLEEN KIERNAN MARC 222 GROVE CT 8 E WATER PL 161 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 LARKSPUR HOLDINGS LLC LATHROP JACOUEIINE SUE 1/2 LAZY W CASTLE CREEK LLC ,,,,; 7607 CURTIS ST 4340 JORDAN DR PO BOX 9603 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 MC FARLAND, WI 53558 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEE BRUCE LANDON 141 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81612 MACLEAN ARCHIBALD JR 8 ANNE 90 TW I N RI DGE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 MENDOZA MARTIN & OLGA 14 E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 MOORE FAMILY PUD MASTER ASSOC INC GO KAUFMAN & PETERSON PC 315 E HYMAN #305 ASPEN, CO 81611 ODONOVAN DENIS 262 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY 530 E MAIN ST #302 ASPEN, CO 81611 PRESS DAVID H 8. SHARI J PO BOX O ASPEN, CO 81612 ROGERS J W 2225 THOMAS RD BEAUMONT, TX 77706 RYERSON LOREN 8 MARY 455 DOOLITTLE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 LINN WILLIAM& NATASHA MACAYEAL IAN 112 19 W WATER PLACE 6 E WATER PL ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 MAGNUSON RICK MEADOWOOD LLC 17 E WATER PLACE 33 SOUTH STATE ST #400 ASPEN, CO 81611 CHICAGO, IL 60603 MERRITT ROBERT C MIKOS ALYSON 19% INT DARNAUER JEANETTE R 8164 WILDWOOD GLEN 51 TWIN RIDGE DR LAS VEGAS, NV 89131 ASPEN, CO 81611 MOUNTAIN OAKS EMPLOYEE HOUSING MURRAY LEON R ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL 12 E WATER PLACE 200 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ONEIL DENNIS & SHARON PATTERSON PAUL T 8 PATRICIA O 101 GROVE CT 499 MEADOWOOD DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 PODHURST AARON S & DOROTHY E pOLOVIN DAVID L TRUSTEES PO BOX 4382 25 W FLAGLER ST ASPEN, CO 81612 MIAMI, FL 33130 READY RANDY & CHERYL RINTOUL AMY V C/O CITY OF ASPEN 161 GROVE CT 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 RRF CORPORATION RUBIN NANCY HIRSCH OPRT RICHARD I FURMAN GO 3035 CHAIN BRIDGE RD NW 1001 S BAYSHORE DR STE 1400 WASHINGTON, DC 20016 MIAMI, FL 33131 RYMAN KAREN L SILVER MORTON FREDRIK & ELLEN 343 GROVE CT ORDA ASPEN, CO 81611 45 E 89TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10128 SLATTERY BRIAN SMITH ASHTON TRICE STRONG ROSEMARY 5 E WATER PL 2 EAST WATER PL STRONG BURNAND ALIA ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 60 TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 r '"~ ~, , SWIM JOHN & STEPHANIE THAU HAROLD A & DOROTHY A 300 AABC UNIT E 0536 MEADOW OOD DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 TOMB WILLIAM N 50% INT TWIN RIDGE HOA 40 TWIN RIDGE DR 363 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 VAUGHAN MATT WACHS EDWARD H JR 8 E WATER PL PO BOX 405 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 WATER PLACE HOMEOWNERS WEIL KIM & BETSY SCHEINKMAN- ASSOCIATION 77 TWIN RIDGE DR C/O CITY ATTORNEY ASPEN, CO 81611 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 WRITER SUZANNE B & RUSSELL S ZANE EDWARD JR 8 ANNA 864 MOORE DR 64lWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 THISSELL MARINA L C 1/2 HOOD JEFFREY M 1/2 121 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 VANDINE FAMILY TRUST 2132 PASEO DEL MAR PALOS VERDES, CA 90274 WALLA JOHN D & JEAN D PO BOX 161 ASPEN, CO 81612 WEINKLE JULIAN & MARY NORMA 61 PRIMROSE PATH ASPEN, CO 81611 ~._ CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of Citv of Aspen Development Application Fees -~ m CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and Citv of Ascen Water Department. (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: I. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for an SPA Amendment, Growth Management Review, 8040 Greenline Review, and Special Review for Parking,(hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible a[ this time ro ascertain the fitll extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is m the interest of dte parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accme following they hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff [o complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to make legally requited findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in [he amount of $ 3 576* which is for twelve (] 2) hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that faihue to pay such accrued costs shall be Bounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN Chris Bendon Community Development Director * includes $2,940 Planning Deposit, $212 Engineering Fee, $212 Housing Fee, and $212 Parks Fee. APPLICANT By: bil Overeyu Public W ' Date: ~7 I / n °I Billing Address and Telephone Number: City of Aspen Finance Department 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 f4~o) 920-6111 .. ,--, .~~ ,-~ s ~` y~ ~s ~~~ W y. e 3 .... V NO RT X~LF VTT ON RENOSMITH ~~.~~ ~ STORAGE BUILDING EAST ELEVATION ~ GTORAGE BUILDING NORTH ELEVATION _ _ A;QZ . U .~~ ~"` 4 4 i ~~ <, z°~S W m <~Os 0~F8 'e'~~< ra 3~ ,~ STORFGE 9UILDING w/CPRPORT PLAN -. RENO SMRH ~~ NvA 301 coveAeo PAncNING. Tau sr. ,-, ---- -- -- ` Regular Meeting Asuen Planning and Zoning June 16.2009 Comments 2 Minutes 2 Conflicts of Interest 2 500 Doolittle Dr SPA Amendment 2 Five Trees Subdivision PUD Amendment 2 Code Amendment Design Call up 6 Reeular Meetin¢ Asoen Plsunine and Zouina Juue 16.2009 Stan Gibbs opened the regular P&Z Meeting in the Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30pm. Commissioners Cliff Weiss, Bert Myrin, Mike Wampler, Stan Gibbs and Dina Bloom were present. Excused were LJ Erspamer, Jim DeFrancia and Brian Speck. Staff in attendance were Errin Evans, Jennifer Phelan, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. COMMENTS Cliff Weiss voiced concern for the Code Amendment Commercial Design call-up. The order of the agenda was changed to 500 Doolittle drive first, Five Trees second and Code Amendment third. There would also be discussion of the overall schedule for P&Z. Cliff Weiss asked about the work session mentioned on page 2 of the minutes. Jennifer Phelan responded that there was a work session with Council and the issue was rooftop access. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes from 04/21/09. Seconded by Mike Wampler; all in favor, Approved. CONFLICT OF INTEREST None Stated. PUBLIC HEARING: 500 DOOLITTLE DR SPA AMENDMENT Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing. Mitch Haas provided notice and posting. Ervin Evans stated before you is the review for a Specially Planned Area (SPA) amendment, Growth Management Quota System Review under essential public facilities and 8040 Greenline Review for a fagade remodel of the administration building and an addition of a carport at the City's Water Treatment Plant. Evans said it was the authority of the Planning & Zoning Commission to approve or deny the 8040 Greenline Review and make a recommendation to City Council regarding the SPA amendment and the Growth Management. Staff recommends approval of the application. Mitch Haas said that the request was to extend the roofline for storage of heavy equipment in the winter and redoing the entrance to the administration building so access could be handled more efficiently. Haas said there were no problems with the staff memo or resolution. Haas utilized a drawing to show the eve and _._ ___ Reeular Meetin¢ Asoen Plannine and Zonin¢ June 16 2009 property, which was 54 acres. Haas said the office expansion was no longer in this year's budget and that was the reason for coming back to P&Z another time. Stan Gibbs asked if there was 104,000 square feet of approved space for the SPA. Evans replied yes, the SPA was done in the early 1980s and the site was large. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve Resolution 010-09approving with conditions, the recommendations for Growth Management Review and Specially Planned Area amendment to Council and approving the requests for 8040 Greenline Review at 500 Doolittle Drive on the City ofAspen Water Treatment Plant ; Dina Bloom seconded. Roll call vote: Wampler, yes; Myrin, yes; Bloom, yes; Weiss, yes; Gibbs, yes; Approved S-0. PUBLIC HEARING: FIVE TREES SUBDIVISION PUD AMENDMENT Stan Gibbs opened the public hearing for Five Trees Subdivision PUD Amendment. Jennifer Phelan explained that Jim Korpela from Beach Resource Management represented the homeowners of the Moore Family PUD also known as Five Trees. Phelan provided proof of notice for posting, mailing and newspaper. Jennifer Phelan said the PUD contained 40 free market lots and 30 affordable housing lots and some open space/park areas and the ski club area. The PUD is regulated by adopted design guidelines and one design guideline says that all development except for driveways and retaining walls associated with driveways are required to be in a building envelope. Phelan stated the building envelope sets the setbacks for a building and contains all of the development within an area on the site. This subdivision was approved in the county and annexed into the city; this subdivision does not have an activity envelope and because of this there were problems with spacing and appropriate landscaping, handling drainage issues on site and connecting and trenching utilities from the road to the property. Phelan said that Community Development has been working with the Parks Department, Engineering Department and with Beach Resource Management to allow an Activity Envelope. The Activity Envelope would be a defined area from the foundation of a building out 20 feet and within that activity envelope it would allow for drainage swales, drywells, geothermal wells, and approved landscaping. The Interim Disturbance Area which is a 10 foot wide trenching allowance from the street to the building envelope for utilities that's required to be re-vegetated with natural landscaping and be approved by both Beach Resource Management on behalf of the homeowners and the Pazks Department. During discussions it came 3 Regular Meeting Asoen Planning and Zoning June 16.2009 up that it might be appropriate to put some landscaping in open space areas of the subdivision and if there were issues of diseased trees outside the building envelope there was some allowance to work with the Parks Department to remove and replant diseased trees. Phelan explained that there were 40 free-market lots zoned R-30 and R-15 zone district constituted 30 affordable housing units. Phelan said the R-30 minimum lot size was 30,000 feet with minimum front yard setback at 25 feet; side yard setback is 10 feet and rear is 15 feet. Phelan said on the eastern by the ski lift easement there was over 20 foot setback from the building. Bert Myrin said that trees go to die behind the Red Brick. Myrin asked how a site constraint worked in the city for the relocation of trees. Phelan replied Parks will come out and determine what trees by caliper and/or species on the property and will determine what trees to be saved and what trees can be removed with a Parks Mitigation fee or that tree that was removed must be replaced. Phelan said that some people would pay the Parks Mitigation fee, replant trees on the HOA open space or replanting on the owners property. Myrin said the resolution doesn't have a priority on the City's point of view. Phelan responded that it would be a case by case basis; people were interested in landscaping for privacy issues to a degree on their property. Cliff Weiss asked where the relocated idea came from. Myrin suggested a priority that the trees stay on the property first and if that doesn't work then the trees would go on the open space and cash mitigation was the last. Cliff Weiss asked if the 30 and 40 houses were already built. Phelan replied that the affordable housing units were built and about 8free-market units were not completely built yet. Mike Wampler asked if the houses that were not yet built would have the same rules as the people who had already built houses. Jennifer Phelan replied yes. Weiss asked if the draining would be optional. Phelan replied that it was not optional drainage had to be maintained on site; drywells can be placed 10 feet from the foundation. Wampler asked what if people don't want to do it, will they be forced to do it. Phelan replied that a drainage plan was necessary. Wampler asked if there were any othev options for the people. Stan Gibbs asked where area 9 was located. Phelan replied that it was in the original plans adjacent to Grey Talon Court. 4 .-~ ~.:.r ~_ Reeular Meetine Asoen Plannine and Zonine June 16.2009 Weiss said that he only had one lot and didn't know if the property line on a lot 20 feet setback how close was it to the surrounding lots. Phelan replied that someone would not be able to landscape across a property boundary. Jim Korpela, Beach Management Resource Management, pointed out that any landscaping that a homeowner would do, would be subject to the property line boundary. Korpela said there was not an activity envelope in the current PUD and that has hampered efforts to mitigate drainage issues and utility improvements needed to be made; so this was to clean up the language to give the flexibility with the controls in place. Myrin reiterated his prioritizing of the landscaping issues. Phelan suggested if prioritizing landscape on the actual lot; the second preference would be to landscape on open space and cash in lieu would be third. Korpela said it was good to prioritize. Weiss asked if the house on lot 28 was built. Korpela answered that it was under construction. Public Comments: Bruce said that he lived in the subdivision and agreed with the recommendations. MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to approve Resolution 009 series of 2009 for S00 Doolittle Drive Spa Amendment with the priority in paragraph 6 to include tree replacement on the individual lots is preferred, secondly with landscaping on the open space and the third cash payment in lieu for mitigation and #7 to maintain a natural environment; Mike Wampler seconded. Adl in favor of the amendment and roll call: Weiss, yes; Bloom, yes; Wampler, yes; Myrin, yes; Gibbs, yes; APPROVED 5-0. Korepla said that Parks would oversee everything. Discussion on P&Z Schedule: The commissioners and community development discussed the overall schedule. Jennifer Phelan said that there were a number of cases slated to come before P&Z. The commissioners objected to having more meetings especially 2 meetings back to back in one week; and asked why there were 6 meetings additional with HPC on the Wheeler. Phelan said that it would take 2 meetings to go through what the architects had and it takes only 4 members combined P&Z and HPC for a quorum. Then P&Z will review the Wheeler on Growth Management. Phelan said the Wheeler review was conceptual, commercial design and growth management. .-.. Reeular Meetine Asoen Plannine and Zonine June 16.2009 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT -COMMERCIAL DESIGN CALL UP Stan Gibbs opened the continued public hearing for the code amendment. Jennifer Phelan explained that there was a call up provision that Council has 30 days to call up a decision made by either the Historic Preservation Commission or the Planning & Zoning Commission with regards to conceptual design approval. If Council calls the decision up, the decision can either be reversed, changed or remanded back to the board that made the decision if it was found that due process had not been provided or the board had exceeded its jurisdiction. Phelan noted that the Council could decide on de novo which could mean that they do not like the decision. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to continue the public hearing for the proposed Code Amendment related to Design Call Up specifically Land Use Code Sections 26.415.120; 26.412.0408; 26.415.070D3 and 26.415.070D4 to November 3, 2009; Dina Bloom seconded. All in favor, APPROYEDS-0. Adjourned at 6:15pm. ~[~l ackie Lot ian, Deputy City Clerk t AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26 X04.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CdDE ADDRESS dF PROPERTY: SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: ~ue~~ ~(~~' !sT' 200 ~ STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitlun ) Aspen, CO I, ~~ v~~ ~ Gd-(~~f (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public nofice 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 tlxe publication is attached ]xereto. 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 ~~as posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hear~g and was continuously visible from the _ day of , 200_, and including the. date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sio x) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Deparment, which contains the information described in Section 26304.060(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 frYst 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 appeazed no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the oivrxers and go»ernnxental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (continued otx next page) 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 that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs aze subject to this notice requirement Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official caning 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. ~~ `5~ignatuf The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was aclmowledged before me this ! day ofc~2,v„tz , 2008, by -~~r~2ac. ~~- cu.f -2-~~~ PUBLIr flE: S00 DOO ITTLE DRIVE, WATEN TREATNENT PLAN ,SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDME , 6040 GREENLINE RE- VIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW WTINESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My otazy UV Uoouttla Unve, Aspen, GD, 61611 owner of the subject builtlln0. The ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: Water Plant AI rcatlo, 61611. Fa n Evans a1 the Developpment Department, 130 S. Galena 6L, As- pen, CO, (W(1) 429.2]45, emne0ci esoen co us. sM1J Erooamar Dlulr Aapen Planning antl Inning Cwnmisabn Publishetl in the ASpen Times Weekly on May 31, 2009. 13469242] CORY J. GARSKE ='., CiEPUBLICATION '~ 4PH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (,SIGN My Camndesbn iE OWNERSAND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED T CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE 2ED BYGRS. §24-65.5-103.3 osroasotz .~. ~ AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 5oa '1/OpI,I~ICIk ~JE ,Aspen, CO SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING DATE: 1tj,t1FL] (p , 200 STATE OF COLORADO ss. County of Pitldn ) I, ~~T(ib} (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City 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 pub[icarion 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 hei ht. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the ~y of _ ~A'~ 200, 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. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as pazt 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 azea of the proposed change shallbe waived. However, t proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for da s prior to the public hearing on such amendments. The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowl ged before me this day V of ~lt.h~ ,200 by ~l~G HOiFiS WITNESS MY AND AND OFFICIAL SEAL Mycoi mires: (D 2 20!/ c ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL NATALLIA F. KHARKHAL My Commission Expires 10A211011 ,.. r `~.. PUBLIC NOTICE RE: 500 DOOLITTLE DRIVE, WATER TREATMENT PLANT, SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA AMENDMENT, 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW, SPECIAL REVIEW AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will beheld on Tuesday, June 16, 2009, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in the Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, to consider an application submitted by Haas Land Planning, LLC, 201 North Mill Street, Suite 108, Aspen, CO, 81611 on behalf of the City of Aspen, 500 Doolittle Drive, Aspen, CO, 81611 who is the owner of the subject building. The applicant is proposing to add two additions to the Water Treatment Plant to accommodate new office space and a carport. The applicant is requesting the following development approval: Specially Planned Area Amendment, 8040 Greenline Review, Special Review and Growth Management Review. The properties aze legally described as Lot 25, Water Plant Affordable Housing, Aspen, Colorado, 81611. For further information, contact Errin Evans at the City of Aspen Community Development Depaztment, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 429.2745, errine@ci.aspen.co.us. s/I,J Erspamer, Chair Aspen Planning and Zoning Comnission Published in the Aspen Times on May 31 S`, 2009 ^-~ City of Aspen Account 0 L~~,.f~ XI ..rc- yl ~9 ~ , a `3T ~• ""~~LEXANDER JOAN P ANDERSON TIM - _ BERGMAN CARL R 8 CATHERINE M x,39 25RD 11 E WATER PLAC PO BOX 1365 CO 81612 PEN GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 ASPEN, CO 8161 t , AS 1 CASTLE RIDGE ASSOCIATES LTD CHRISTIAN RONALD E 8 JOY R BLOEMSMA PHILIP 0074 TWIN RIDGE DR CIO HILL MANAGEMENT CO 4g yy yyATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 PO BOX 95 ST ANN, MO 63074 ASPEN, CO 81611 . CITY OF ASPEN CLUB PROPERTIES INC CONSUEGRA UNDA ATTN FINANCE DEPT 1 GROVE ISLE DR #1501 10 E WATER PLACE . 130 S GALENA ST MIAMI, FL 33133 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 . CRIMMEL WILLIAM & PETRA CROOK ROBERT B CROSS SUSAN K 323 GROVE CT 7 E WATER PLACE 242 GROVE C7 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 CROW LEY JAMES P III DAKS FAMILY TRUST DAVIS DANIEL L & BRENDA L 21 W WATER PLACE 889 S STARWOOD DR 3 E WATER PLACE ~, ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 DILBECK JASON DUFFEY MARY A 99.009% DESGEORGES JOHN 202 GROVE CT GIBSONE ALEXANDER SCOTT 1D B .001% p R PO BOX 8321 BOX 652 O A ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81612 FABROCINI ROBERT FRISSELLE FAM TRUST 50% ° GOEDSBOROUGH NEAL PO BOX 10820 ARBURY DOROTHY D TRUST 50% q E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81612 123 LARKSPUR LN CO 81611 ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81611 A , A GREGG JASON A 8 URSULA M HAGERTY KEVIN JOHN & ELIZABETHB HARDER DEBORAH H 860 MOORE DR 15 E WATER PLACE 109 TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 8161 t ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 8161 t HEGER FRANK & CARIA KELLY KATHLEEN KIERNAN MARC 222 GROVE CT 8 E WATER PL 161 GROVE CT CO 84611 ASPEN ASPEN, CO 81811 ASPEN, CO 81611 , LARKSPUR HOLDINGS LLC LATHROP JACQUELINE SUE 112 LAZY W CASTLE CREEK LLC 7807 CURTIS ST 4340 JORDAN DR PO BOX 9603 CHEVY CHASE, MD 20815 MC FARLAND, WI 53558 ASPEN, CO 81612 LEE BRUCE LANDON LINN WILLIAM 8 NATASHA ""1 GROVE CT 19 W WATER PLACE ?EN, CO 81612 ASPEN, CO 81611 MACLEAN ARCHIBALD JR 8 ANNE 90 TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 MAGNUSON RICK 17 E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 MENDOZA MARTIN 8 OLGA 14 E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 MOORE FAMILY PUD MASTER ASSOC INC GO KAUFMAN 8 PETERSON PC 315 E HYMAN #305 ASPEN, CO 81611 ODONOVAN DENTS 262 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 PITKIN COUNTY 530 E MAIN ST #302 ASPEN, CO 81611 PRESS DAVID H 8 SHARI J PO BOX O ASPEN, CO 81612 ROGERS J W 2225 THOMAS RD BEAUMONT, TX 77706 RYERSON LOREN 8 MARY 455 DOOLITTLE DR ASPEN, CO 61611 MERRITT ROBERT C DARNAUERJEANETTE R 51 TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 MOUNTAIN OAKS EMPLOYEE HOUSING ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL 200 CASTLE CREEK RD ASPEN, CO 81611 ONEII DENNIS 8 SHARON 101 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 PODHURST AARON S 8 DOROTHY E TRUSTEES 25 W FLAGLER ST MIAMI, FL 33130 READY RANDY 8 CHERYL GO CITY OF ASPEN 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 RRF CORPORATION RICHARD I FURMAN GO 1001 S BAYSHORE DR STE 1400 MIAMI, FL 33131 MACAYEAI IAN 1/2 6 E WATER PL ASPEN, CO 81611 MEADOWOOD LLC 33 SOUTH STATE ST #400 CHICAGO, IL 60603 MIKOS ALYSON 19% TNT 8164 WILDWOOD GLEN LAS VEGAS, NV 89131 MURRAY LEON R 12 E WATER PLACE ASPEN, CO 81611 PATTERSON PAUL T 8 PATRICIA O 499 MEADOWOOD DR ASPEN, CO 81611 POLOVIN DAVID L PO BOX 4382 ASPEN, CO 81612 RI NTOUL AMY V 161 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 RUBIN NANCY HIRSCH OPRT 3035 CHAIN BRIDGE RD NW WASHINGTON, DC 20016 RYMAN KAREN L SILVER MORTON FREDRIK 8 ELLEN 343 GROVE CT ORDA ASPEN, CO 81611 45 E 89TH ST NEW YORK, NY 10128 'LATTERY BRIAN SMITH ASHTON TRICE STRONG ROSEMARY „„,,. E WATER PL 2 EAST WATER PL g0 TWIN RIDGE DRD ALIA ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 87611 ASPEN, CO 81611 •.. • • ~' " ~,. 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 BWIM JOHN 6 STEPHANIE X00 AABC UNIT E ASPEN, CO 81811 TDMB WILLIAM N 50% INT 10 TWIN RI0f3E DR ASPEN, CO 81811 VAU(iHAN MATT 8 E WATER PL ABPEN,CO 81811 WATER PLACE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION C/O CITY ATTORNEY 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81811 WRITER SUZANNE B & RUSSELL S 864 MOORE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ~., THAU HAROLD A & DOROTHY A 0536 MEADOWOOD DR ASPEN, CO 81611 TWIN RIDGE HOA 363 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81611 WACHS EDWARD H JR PO BOX 405 ASPEN, CO 81612 WELL KIM & BETSY SCHEINKMAN- 77TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 ZANE EDWARD JR & ANNA 54 TWIN RIDGE DR ASPEN, CO 81611 THISSELL MARINA L C 1/2 HOOD JEFFREY M 1/2 121 GROVE CT ASPEN, CO 81617 VANDINE FAMILY TRUST 2132 PASEO DEL MAR PALOS VERDES, CA 90274 WALLA JOHN D & JEAN D PO BOX 161 ASPEN, CO 81612 WEINKLE JULIAN & MARY NORMA 61 PRIMROSE PATH ASPEN, CO 81611 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ~ ~~~~ `~' `-~~-' Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Pitkin ) ~- I, ~ ~~~~~~~ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (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 no later than fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. 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 no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy o the publication is attached hereto. ure q The fore oin "Affidavit of Notice" was acl fowled ed before m this 2I day of ~~ ~ , 2008, by ~Ph YID ~t1 p~6{,V1 WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: ~~ ~ . ~-~ Notary Public ~ ATTACHMENTS: -. ,_.,., .eyEV Tpq - _...o,iu sr.. asPeq Published in The ~ Ciry °/ASpeO 2009. (36304847 Aspen Tmes Weekly on June 28, I COPY OF THE P UBLICATION w.7 ~MI~1~ ~ryr•w `~ { 1 ~.~ ,,,, , T ti, r «.; MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below: .....X... City Engineer ......... Community Development Engineer .......... Police Department ...........Zoning Officer .......... Housing Director .....X... Parks Department ........... Aspen Fire Marshal .....X... City Water ........... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District ........... Building Department ........... Environmental Health ........... Electric Department ........... Holy Cross Electric ........... City Attorney ........... Streets Department ........... Historic Preservation Officer .........City Parking Manager ........... Pitkin County Planning FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 429-2745 Fax: 920-5439 RE: SPA Amendment, Growth Management Review, Special Review and 8040 Greenline Review -Proposed Addition of office and storage space at the Water Treatment Plan (500 Doolittle Drive) Parcel ID #2735-132-04-825 DATE: March 24, 2009 COMMENTS: Please review the attached application for an addition of office space and carport. A DRC meeting will be held on April 8`h, 2009. Please have your comments returned by April 17th, 2009. Please return your application if you do not want to hold onto it once the review is finished. DRC Meeting: April 8'", 2009 1:30 pm at Council Chambers Thank You, Errin Evans ..,, ,.~ .^s ;.., ~~ MEMORANDUM TO: Erin Evans, Community Development FROM: Cindy Christensen, Housing DATE: March 26, 2009 RE: PROPOSED ADDITION OF OFFICE AND STORAGE SPACE AT THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT (500 DOOLITTLE DRIVE) Parcel ID No. 2735-132-04-825 ISSUE: The applicant is requesting approval build a carport and add approximately 1,200 square feet of office space. Review Standards: Section 26.470.040, states that essential public facilities shall not be exempt from growth management. Section 26.470.050(B)(5) states that in most cases, 60% of the employees generated must be mitigated. Section 26.470.090.4 addresses Essential Public Facilities: 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 tits unique employees, pursuant to Section 26.470.100 - Calculations. The employee generation table does not have a specific rate for office space; however, it does For mixed use and Public. Mixed use requires mitigation at 3.7 per 1,000 square feet of net leasable space; Public requires mitigation at 3.9 per 1,000 square feet of net leasable squaze feet. The additional 1,200 square feet of office space, under the Employee Generation Table, would require the following mitigation: 1,200 square feet _ 1,000 = 1.2 X 3.7 = 4.44 X 60%= 2.7 1,200 square feet - 1,000 = 1.2 X 3.9 = 4.68 X 60%= 2.8 m The addition of 1,200 square feet of office space would require mitigation of 2.7 or 2.8 FTE's. \~ o 1 '~ ® '~' -- ..,J RECOMMENDATION: The City Council can waive or partially waive the affordable housing mitigation requirement. If the mitigation requirement is waived, the Housing Office would request that an employee audit is done two yeazs after Certificate of Occupancy of the additional space. If there are any additional employees at that point in time, the applicant shall be required to mitigate For up to 2.8 FTE's. ~~+, 2 Hello Phil: Thanks a bunch for the information. I am taking your case back before staff tomorrow. I just have a couple of questions `~r you: - Why did the Water and Electric Departments need to provide these funds? - Also why did your department fund two units at Truscott? On a different topic, do you have a scheduled date for the Music Festival water agreement amendment? Thanks, Errin From: Phil Overeynder Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 2:26 PM To: Errin Evans Cc: Chris Bendon; John Hines Subject: FW: Housing Mitigation--Water Plant Addition Errin, Chris brought this up at the Agency head meeting this week. Steve Barwick directed that we put together data that shows what has been or will be spent towards provision of housing for City employees by the Water and Electric funds (refer to the attachment). This spreadsheet only covers from 2006 forward. There would be other financial contributions from the water and electric fund in years prior to 2006. My recollection is that two units at Truscott were also funded from the utilities funds previous to 2006. Please let me know if you need additional information to prepare your assessment of the extent that the water administration building expansion complies with City policies on housing -zmployees generated by new or expanded development. Thanks, Phil From: Lee Ledesma Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 1:32 PM To: Phil Overeynder Cc: John Hines; Randy Ready; Chris Bendon Subject: RE: Housing Mitigation--Water Plant Addition Phil, Attached is spreadsheet that covers 2006 through 2009 housing contributions for water and electric funds per my meeting with Finance today. Please advise if you need additional information. Regards, Lee L. Lee Ledesma Lit.ilities Operations Manager City' of Aspen 970.429.1975 leel~rci.aspen.co. us From: Phil Overeynder "~ gent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 3:42 PM fo: Lee Ledesma Cc: John Hines; Randy Ready Subject: Housing Mitigation--Water Plant Addition Errin Evans From: Phil Overeynder Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:49 AM To: Errin Evans Cc: John Hines; Lee Ledesma; Randy Ready Subject: Housing Mitigation--Water Plant Addition Errin, This is in response to your questions regarding appropriations for City housing funds by the water and electric department: 1) not just utilities) investigated housing needs for its employees and determined that without action on its part, the City could not continue to attract and retain employees for key positions. Projects were developed to meet these needs and the water and electric funds were asked to transfer funds to an internal housing fund to provide the necessary resources to plan and build new housing for City employees. Note that we did not provide information on funds transferred from the water and electric funds for the development of Water Place (development in 1998) since there was an expansion of the water campus (new administration and storage buildings) at that time and it could be argued that there was an obligation to provide additional City housing in connection with that expansion. 2) Basically the story on Truscott is the same as above, except that Truscott was not a project that was exclusively developed to house City employees. When Truscott was under construction, the City had an opportunity to participate financially in the project in exchange for the right of City employees to occupy a number of the rental , units on a right of first refusal basis. When there is a vacancy in one of these units, City employees are given the right of first refusal to occupy one of a designated number of rental units. I hope this answers your questions. Feel free to contact me if you have additional concerns or questions. Thanks, Phil From: Errin Evans Sent: Monday, May 04, 2009 9:50 AM To: Phil Overeynder Subject: FW: Housing Mitigation--Water Plant Addition Hi Phil: ~ ~ u~ ~~ I hadn't heard from you yet, so I am just resending my email. ~~..~~~ Thanks, Errin From: Errin Evans Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 4:45 PM To: Phil Overeynder Subject: RE: Housing Mitigation--Water Plant Addition (~~-1e ~ ~ ~ ~~~ n,o~ ~~ ~V~," ` L~-~2~~ I ~-~/ C ~~ h~~ ~~~ G nr`~-?~ `~ ~~ ~ a ~.c, ~, ~~ .~ 1 ~o C j, ~~w .e . ~'V _ U. o i~ ~~ ~ UPS