HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.02A-86 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET jam" ' ` �� / v
[C /} p/ City of Aspen
°DATE RECEIVED:. 11 19/1 2 CASE NO. CPfleL
DATE RECEIVED COMPLETE: STAFF: ` - -S
PROJECT NAME - «1 UOt& IJI '/ A i, vilfl .d - pi t l ... _ / l * 1 ? ; i
APPL ICANT: .► 41 1P .. � � ea Applicant Address / r o o '� WS allta 7lar���LSV t
REPRES EN TAT IV E:
Representative Address /Phone:
i
Type of Application: Nal
I. GMP /Subdivision /PUD
1. Conceptual Submission 20 $2,730.00 rat
2. Preliminary Plat 12 1,640.00
3. Final Plat 6 820.00
II. Subdivision /PUD
1. Conceptual Submission 1 4 f $1,900.00
2. Preliminary Plat 9 1,220.00
3. Final Plat 6 820.00
III. All "Two Step" Applications 11 $1,490.001
n . All "One Step" Applications 5 $ 680.00 c,
V. Referral Fees - Environmental
�a
Health, Housing Office Y �1
1 . Minor Applications 2 $ 50.001✓
2. Major Applications 5 $ -1.2-5-SO-doe, D.
P &7 CC MEETING DATE: , 9 - . PUBLIC HEARIN : YES . NO W-
DATE REFERRED: f + . INITIALS: 17
REFS RALS: VVVUUU e�
1 City Atty Aspen Consol. S. D. School District
/ City Engineer Mtn. Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat. Gas
- Housing Dir. Parks Dept. StateHwy Dept (Gleradd) : '
✓ Aspen Water tJ Holy Cross Electric _ State Hwy Dept (Gr.Jtn) �
City Electric Fire Marshall Bldg: Zoning /Inspectnr 4alo
Envir. Hlth. Fire Chief Other:
//
Roaring Fork Energy Cente
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: p1��,410 INITIAL: V(
X ®t'..,
City Atty 1' City Engineer X Building Dep V
/
r C"
Other: other: V
FILE STATUS AND LOCATIOPd:ILI �R!{L7
fttil
,� Reviewed by: 0spen PL City Council Ave,Cfort- 105aWVIr
5/1 Ar rti i 8 toPE it
t • E , Pyblic F4 ;II Tilt) ,
1 11 I. 0 °I11 11 H t f d-2 c�x,,�rwr�'a�Gy ( u t & /z q c ar / it 9 , t ,, 70 _,,/ SP p 4 , 4P I. —/-
a� N,P tae � 1, #� P;,l!c Fc � a„Pr�i e �v t4 ^r.
i
1 bM 1144 2 3,14gj e4 66 ;J S ( 4 - f) 4 0P14 iL, Wet: D 59A Atkod,p i d 6 it
t ,; 0. f t, ik fJc:r cc,-h.7„ 0: •
' 1. The applicant shall verify the ownership of the land
abutting Mill Street and obtain an easement to accommodate
''` the proposed driveway which is acceptable to the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
project.
'.2. Testing by a geotechnical engineer to verify the design
+ relative to the groundwater condition in the site shall be
accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
3. Sand traps within the drainage system for the storage
- facility bays shall be installed as represented in the
application.
4. The applicant shall contact the State Department of Health
Q and the U.S. Envf'ionmental Protection Agency for the most
F current information regarding fuel tank environmental safety
and shall submit a more detailed proposal based on the most
applicable criteria to the satisfaction of the Environmental
-
Health Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. Trees shall be replanted as represented in the proposed
better scr plan.
een the
east, westlandtrees
south
elev planted
to
ationsofthe
_ proposed building.
6. The applicant shall designate the northerly portion of the
property as interim open space.
- 7. An SPA plan shall be filed with the County Clerk and
Recorder's Office, meeting the requirements of the Engineer
- ing Department prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the project. ,
8. Construction, paving and landscaping shall be accomplished
by no later than lay , 1987. An improvements guarantee and
bonding sufficient to cover paving landscaping shall be
filed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Engineer
ing Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
•
2ted Sanitation �istlrict
;� 1 . _ k orth Mill Street
Colorado 81611
l,
ri <d :
t ,
pt . Tele. 1303) 925 -2537
'�"" I i
1 . r )::Z , +. p , ``
y 5.314 fi' L v;56 "
Q c7..- 0 June 18, 1987
un��� �� n v' t
� 7 , "` � � �
u ,
JUN 1 91987
4 L_4
J
RE: Office expansion and storage garage
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565 N. Mill Street, Aspen, Colorado
Dear Alan:
Pursuant to the telephone inquiry yesterday by our architect,Jan Derrington,
to Steve Burstein regarding some modifications to the approved S.P.A. for the
referenced project now under construction, I am submitting this letter to
outline the intended modifications.
The approved S.P.A.documents show a 4 -bay storage garage structure in which
the easterly 2 bays are entirely enclosed and have overhead garage doors. The
westerly 2 bays were to be partially enclosed with a low wall to the south, a
full wall on the west end and the north side left open as a carport type of
shelter for vehicles and materials. The applicant now intends to add windows
above the south wall and install 2 overhead garage doors and one main door
on the north with masonry infill walls to completely enclose the westerly 2
bays so that they are exactly like the 2 easterly bays previously approved.
Revised prints of the floor plan and elevations have been enclosed for your
review.
There will be no additional footprint of F.A.R. area and the use will
remain the same as approved in the original S.P.A. The bulk of the structure
is not being changed in anyway and the visual impact will be no greater than
before. The site paving and landscaping will also remain as approved.
Therefore, I respectfully request that you approve the above modifications
as a technical ammendment to the approved S.P.A..I understand that this is
an abbreviated process that can be executed by you without further review by
the P & Z.Commission or City Council. A space has been provided at the bottom
of this letter for your signature so that this can serve as the document for
ammending the S.P.A. for this project.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely
h4,-/t I .'
Heiko Kuhn,District Manager
PROVED:
Alan Richman Date
Director of Planning
City of Aspen
I' '! ff I eArii, 54r 1:;:.7, —.
01 Al i /1ry'/
LI i
MEMORANDUM 1 9 s
`To: Bill Dreuding, Building Department ,p
From: Chuck Roth, Assistant City Engineer C p�
Date: September 18, 1986
Re: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District SPA Amendment
The Engineering Department has no objections to issuing an
excavation and foundation permit. Please hold issuance of
superstructure permit until the remaining conditions of SPA
approvals have been completed.
cc: Jim Wilson
Jay Hammond
Steve Burstein
misc.5
!ya
MEMO
3 -3 -86
To: Steve Burstein
c/o Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department
City Hall
City of Aspen
From: JVA Architects
210 DD Ventnor Ave.
ABC
Aspen, Colorado
Subject: Aspen ConsolidateSSanitation District, Maintenance and
Administration Facility, Supplement to SPA Application
Dear Steve,
In reply to your concerns regarding certain questions about
our application for SPA approval for subject project, we submit the
following information.
1. Proposed Uses on Site
All proposed uses on the site for which we are applying are extensions
of existing uses. Administration, maintenance, employee housing,
materials storage, general storage and vehicle feuling facilities are
all present uses. We are not proposing any new uses for the site.
2. Area Breakdown for each use
Administration 955 sf.
Housing 1,370 sf.
Maintenance - Carport 3,264 sf.
Circulation- Storage 55 sf.
3. Paved areas
Asphalt paving 9,660 sf.
Snowmelt concrete 953 sf. e
Respectfully submitted this 0 day of t.I--- 1986
erirpfre
Robert Sterling, Jr.
JVA Architects
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Ron Mitchell, Acting City Manager
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office AIK
RE: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District SPA Amendment
and GMP Exemption for Essential Public Facilities
Parcel ID 82737- 073 -00 -004
DATE: June 16, 1986
LOCATION: 565 N. Mill Street
ZONING: Public
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests approval to build a
4,154 square foot administrative and storage facility attached to
the existing office building at 565 N. Mill Street. An SPA
development area of approximately 32,200 square feet has been
delineated to contain the project. There are three main compo-
nents of the building: Office Space (1,026 sq.ft.); 2 -Bay
Vehicle Storage (1,564 sq. ft.); and, a 2 -Bay Carport for future
enclosure (1,564 sq. ft.). Also proposed within the planning
area are two buried fuel tanks and fueling island, paved areas
for parking and circulation, landscaping and undergrounding of
existing utilities.
APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CODE: The administrative and office
facility is eligible for a growth management competition exemp-
tion pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(e) for essential public facili-
ties. The applicant must demonstrate that a proposed facility "
. . , meets an essential governmental purpose, provides facili-
ties in response to the demands of growth and is not itself a
growth generator, is available for use by the general public,
services the needs of the local community and is a not-for-profit
venture." Impacts to be mitigated include " . . . those associ-
ated with the generation of additional employees; the demand for
parking, road and transit services; and the need for such basic
services as water supply, sewage treatment, drainage control,
fire and policy protection and solid waste disposal."
All of the area and bulk requirements in the public zone district
are set according to Section 24 -3.4 by an adopted plan for a
Specially Planned Area (SPA). Section 24 -7.7 states the review
criteria by which the precise plan shall be reviewed, including
1
most importantly:
"(1) Whether the proposal is compatible with neighboring
developments in terms of use, density, height, bulk, open
space, landscaping and other site and architectural design
features . . .
(2) Whether sufficient utilities and roads exist to service
the intended development.
(4) Whether the applicant has creatively employed land
planning techniques such as setbacks, clustering, screening,
buffering and architectural design 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.
(5) Whether the proposal is in compliance with the Aspen
Area General Plan."
Each of these items are addressed below under Staff Comments on
the proposal.
BACKGROUND: The existing office building which contains two (2)
employee units on the second floor was built in 1976. In 1981,
an SPA plan was approved for the construction of a four unit
employee housing project in the northwest portion of the pro-
perty. The sewage treatment facility was abandoned in 1983 and
dismantled and /or covered up in 1985.
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District submitted an applica-
tion for a maintenance facility and employee housing on this site
in February, 1986. However, upon P &2's recommendation for denial
of a Code amendment allowing maintenance facilities and employee
housing zone district as conditional uses, the applicant submit-
ted an amended application in April. Council adopted an Ordi-
nance on May 27, 1986 making these conditional uses in the Public
zone district, but the applicant still prefers to go forward with
this alternative request.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. Referral Comments:
1. Engineering Department - In a memorandum from Jay
Hammond dated April 15, 1986 (Attachment B) the
following comments were given:
a. There is a narrow undefined parcel abutting Mill
Street that may be in County ownership. The
applicant should verify the ownership of the land
and obtain an appropriate easement to accommodate
2
the proposed driveway.
b. The proposed SPA boundary should be defined by a
metes and bounds description. The area for the
foundation drain routing should be deleted from
the described SPA.
c. The proposed site is not within 100 feet of the
floodplain and, therefore, no Stream Margin Review
is required. The Engineering Department recom-
mends testing by a geotechnical engineer to verify
the design relative to the groundwater conditions
on the site. There do not appear to be any other
geological hazards.
d. The site is under consideration as a potential
location for a City Street Department facility;
however, preliminarily it appears to be
unsuitable. The Engineering Department is not
recommending that the proposal be put on hold
until other studies are completed.
2. Environmental Health: In a memorandum from Tom Dunlop
dated March 27, 1986 (Attachment C) the following
concerns were discussed:
a. Oil and grease from the storage facility bays
should be contained by sand traps similar to those
found in a service station. In a May 1, 1986,
memorandum Mr. Dunlop added that the proposed sand
traps discussed by the applicant are in confor-
mance with the policies of the Environmental
Health Department.
b. The Colorado Health Department and U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency should be contacted with
regard to the location, sizes, type, etc. of the
proposed fuel tanks. General criteria dictate
that the tanks must not corrode, must be com-
patible with the material they contain, and are
structurally sound.
c. If windblown dust becomes a source of complaints
during construction, the applicant must initiate
remedies such as watering, chemical dust suppres-
sion and fencing. Prompt revegetation and use of
pavement will provide long -term dust control.
3. Water Department: In a March 11, 1986 memorandum from
Jim Markalunas (Attachment D), it is stated that water
will be available to the facility from existing water
mains.
3
4. Housing Authority: In a March 11, 1986 memorandum from
Ann Bowman (Attachment E) it is pointed out that there
are currently twelve (12) employees of the Sanitation
District. Verbally Ms. Bowman stated that the Housing
Authority accepted that no new employees would be
generated by the proposal.
B. STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning Office has the following
comments about the Sanitation District proposal:
1. Essential Public Facilities: In order to be eligible
for an exemption from the Growth Management Quota
System, the applicant must demonstrate that the
proposed project is an essential public facility and
that the impacts of the project will be mitigated. The
applicant has argued that the project is necessary for
the efficient operation of the Sanitation District.
More office space is needed as the present quarters are
somewhat cramped, and indoor storage space is necessary
for pipe and vehicles that are used almost exclusively
in the Aspen Area. Mr. Kuhn stated that the Hog
Pastures Treatment Plant site next to the Airport
Business Center is approximately four (4) miles from
Aspen and this site is too small for expansion. If the
facility were located at Hog Pastures, the eight (8)
mile round trip is costly, and emergency response time
for the lines in the City of Aspen would be unaccept-
ably slow according to Mr. Kuhn.
As mentioned by the City Engineer, the City Streets
Department is in need of additional facility space, and
a study is under way to evaluate alternative sites.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that facilities in
the entire Aspen /Snowmass area should be consolidated.
While there may be many advantages to such a consolida-
tion of city, county and special district facilities,
there is no accepted plan to accommodate this develop-
ment program. At the present time, the only reasonable
site is the County location next to the bus maintenance
facility, which will not serve the ACSD needs. The
Planning Office believes it is inappropriate to delay
the Sanitation District project until other entities
develop their maintenance and storage facilities plans.
The Planning Office believes that the proposed project
appears to be necessary and does qualify for the
Essential Facilities GMP Exemption. Mitigation of the
impacts of the project will be discussed below,
incorporated into the SPA plan review.
2. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses: To the south
of the project are the Stephan Kaelin building and Mill
4
Street Venture in the Service /Commercial /Industrial
(S /C /I) zone district. The proposed facility does not
appear to create any conflicts with these adjacent
S /C /I uses. No significant noise, dust or fumes should
be created. Considering the proposed building's
maximum height of 22 feet at a lower grade sloping
toward the river, architectural style and materials,
and proposed landscaping, this building should not
create unacceptable visual impacts for neighbors to the
south.
To the north and west of the Sanitation District
development parcel is open space zoned Park. Further-
more, there is a significant amount of green area
within the Sanitation District Public zoned parcel that
is the result of successful revegetation after removal
of the treatment plant and snow dump. This green area
is part of the general open space along both sides of
the Roaring Fork River. It is highly desireable to
maintain the open space character of the general area.
Given the siting of the proposed structure towards the
south of the property, most of the area would remain
green space. This project would not appear to severely
derogate that open space; and the landscaping proposal
should be expanded to further soften the visual impacts
of the building from the Rio Grande Trail and the open
space along the river. It should be noted that the
Sanitation District has already done a great deal on
its own volition to make the site attractively clean
and green.
To insure future compatibility with the river Greenway
Plan, we suggest that the open space be designated as
open space in the SPA plan. This area should remain as
private open space until the time of an SPA plan for
the Sanitation District use of it. It would not
necessarily be open space into perpetuity.
3. Utilities and Roads: The utilities are in place and
appear to be able to handle this project. Some
undergrounding will occur. Mill Street is capable of
handling the volume of traffic generated by the
project, estimated at 20 vehicle trips per day. Sight
distance is not a major problem. The access easement
issue raised by the Engineering Department should be
resolved.
4. Environmental Concerns: The Environmental Health
Department discussed two areas of concern that should
be further accounted for by the applicant. The fuel
tanks should meet the latest criteria for environmental
safety promulgated by the State Department of Health
5
and the EPA. In addition, dust suppression should be
monitored so that it does not become a problem during
construction, and revegetation should be accomplished
as soon after construction as possible.
As suggested by the Engineering Department, a geotech-
nical engineer should verify the design of the struc-
ture and drainage system with regard to the groundwater
conditions on the site. Sand traps should be installed
as represented in the application.
5. Land Planning Techniques: The SPA -set area and bulk
requirements as well as the SPA plan review criteria
encourage creative land planning techniques. The
building is sited behind the existing office building
and at a fairly low grade compared to nearby properties
and roads. Primarily for this reason, it appears that
the building will not have a great visual impact from
Mill Street, where the greatest number of people will
pass nearby the building. The other significant
viewplane is from the Rio Grande Trail and the river-
side. Additional tree plantings should be incorporated
in the plan to further screen the structure from those
views. The architectural design will match the
existing office, using brick, cedar paneling and a flat
roof. Garage doors should be painted the same approxi-
mate brown of the brick so to not call any unnecessary
attention to the building.
Three spruce trees west of the existing office would be
relocated to the south side of the proposed building
and this appears acceptable.
6. Compliance with Aspen Area General Plan: The 1973
Aspen General Land Use Plan designates the site as open
space, however, shows the Sanitation Plant in this
location. The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Re-
creation /Open Space /Trails Element (July 1985) shows a
portion of the site as existing open space and part of
the area as proposed open space. There are no proposed
trails nor identification of property for acquisition
that the proposed development site would effect. As
stated above, the portion of the site near the river
(outside the SPA development area) should be designated
as interim open green space. This action would help
implement the goals of the Open Space Plan.
7. Schedule: The building and landscaping should be
completed by May, 1987, or else be subject to an
amendment to the SPA plan.
6
COMMITTEE VOTE: On June 3, 1986, the Planning Commission
unanimously (4 -0) voted to recommend approval of the proposed SPA
Plan Amendment subject to the eight conditions listed below.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office and Planning Commission
recommend City Council to approve the proposed SPA Plan Amendment
and GMP Exemption for Essential Public Facilities subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall verify the ownership of the land
abutting Mill Street and obtain an easement to accommodate
the proposed driveway which is acceptable to the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
project.
2. Testing by a geotechnical engineer to verify the design
relative to the groundwater condition in the site shall be
accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
3. Sand traps within the drainage system for the storage
facility bays shall be installed as represented in the
application.
4. The applicant shall contact the State Department of Health
and the U.S. Envrionmental Protection Agency for the most
current information regarding fuel tank environmental safety
and shall submit a more detailed proposal based on the most
applicable criteria to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Health Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. Trees shall be replanted as represented in the proposed
landscape plan. Ten additional trees shall be planted to
better screen the east, west and south elevations of the
proposed building.
6. The applicant shall designate the northerly portion of the
property as interim open space.
7. An SPA plan shall be filed with the County Clerk and
Recorder's Office, meeting the requirements of the Engineer-
ing Department prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the project.
8. Construction, paving and landscaping shall be accomplished
by no later than May, 1987. An improvements guarantee and
bonding sufficient to cover paving landscaping shall be
filed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Engineer-
ing Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
SB . 2
7
ti770,61.f'r C
ASPEN*PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
TO: Steve Burstein
Planning Office
FROM: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director 5)46
Environmental Health Dept.
DATE: March 27, 1986
RE: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District - SPA Precise Plan
Amendment Parcel ID* 2737- 073 -00- 004 /Case No. City 02A -86
The above mentioned submittal has been reviewed by this
office for the following environmental concerns:
WATER QUALITY
The proposal specifically addresses the installation of a
two vehicle maintenance bay with the ability to increase
that to four bays at some future date. Plans have been made
to contain oil and grease from the shop bays in sand traps
similar to those found in service stations. Routine main-
tenance of these sand interceptors has been committed to by
the applicant.
The project proposes the installation of two 2,000 gallon
underground fuel storage tanks in conjunction with a fueling
island. Over the past several months regulations have been
promulgated by the State of Colorado and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency governing such installations. Specifically,
notification of tank locations, sizes, type, etc. are
required by the applicant. Contact the following persons
for the most current information on these new laws:
Colorado Health Dept.
Mr. Ron Stow
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
Phone - 320 -8333
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VIII
Mr. Jay Silvernale
One Denver Place
999 18th Street, Suite 1300 •
Denver, CO 80202
Phone - 293 -1504
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -2020
Page 2
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
March 27, 1986
General criteria dictates the tanks must not corrode, they
must be compatible with the material they contain and they
must be structurally sound.
AIR DUALITY
The application provides for the addition of approximately
1,370 square feet for future employee housing. This area
will be split into two housing units, one studio and one
one - bedroom unit.
Mention is not made if the units will contain solid fuel
burning devices or not. That decision will be regulated by
City of Aspen Ordinance #5 Series of 1986. Numbers of
devices and their design are specified in this ordinance.
Should windblown dust become a source of complaints during
the construction phase of the project, remedies shall be
initiated by the applicant. These may take the form of
watering, fencing the site or applying dust suppression
chemicals to the disturbed areas. Prompt revegetation of
disturbed soils will provide a long term dust control
program as will the use of asphalt on driving and parking
areas.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Service of this structure by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District sewage collection system is in conformance with
policies of this office.
WATER SUPPLY
Service to this project by the City of Aspen water distribution
system is in conformance with policies of this office. -
TD /mac /SanDistrict.SPAPrecisePlan
A1t4(hA 4 p
v
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT N PAR 12 ;1
MEMORANDUM
Li
TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: JIM MARKALUNAS
SUBJECT: ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT
DATE: MARCH 11, 1986 Q
y �WalitN.d/)
We have reviewed the Aspe station Districts application
for approval of an additio• • to the existing office building
to contain a maintenance shop, office space and employee housing.
The proposed use will have a minimal impact on the water system.
Water will be available to the facilities from existing water
mains and services upon application for the necessary permits.
JM:ab
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Housing Director
Aspen Water Dept.
Environmental Health
Holy Cross Electric
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Consolidated Sanitatino District - SPA Precise
Plan Amendment
Parcel ID #2737- 073 -00- 004 /Case No. City 02A -86
DATE: March 7, 1986
Attached for your review is an application submit by Heiko Kuhn
of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, requesting
approval of an addition to the existing office building to
contain a maintenance shop, office space and employee housing.
The property is located northwest of and adjacent to the Mill
Street Bridge and along the Rio Grande Trail just behind the Post
Office. The property is zone SPA and such a request requires SPA
Precise Plan Amendment.
Please review this material and return your referral comments to
the Planning Office no later than April 1st.
Thank you.
/en Z 2- F4- Z
MEMO
3 -3 -86
To: Steve Burstein
c/o Aspen /Pitkin Planning Department
City Hall
City of Aspen
From: JVA Architects
210 DD Ventnor Ave.
ABC
Aspen, Colorado
Subject: Aspen ConsolidatedSanitation District, Maintenance and
Administration Facility, Supplement to SPA Application
Dear Steve,
In reply to your concerns regarding certain questions about
our application for SPA approval for subject project, we submit the
following information.
1. Proposed Uses on Site
All proposed uses on the site for which we are applying are extensions
of existing uses. Administration, maintenance,employee housing,
materials storage, general storage and vehicle feuling facilities are
all present uses. We are not proposing any new uses for the site.
2. Area Breakdown for each use
Administration 955 sf.
Housing 1,370 sf.
Maintenance- Carport 3,264 sf.
Circulation- Storage 55 sf.
c644S.f.
3. Paved areas
Asphalt paving 9,660 sf.
Snowmelt concrete 953 sf.
Respectfully submitted this 0- day of ktoXt n
-r 1986
n
-f .des -ar
J
Robert Sterling, Jr.
JVA Architects
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: Amendment to the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen,
Colorado: Section 24 -3.2, Permitted and Conditional
Uses
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held
on April 8, 1986, at a meeting to begin at 5:00 o'clock P.M.,
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commision, in City Council
Chambers, City Hall, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to amend
Section 24 -3.2, Permitted and Conditional Uses, of the Municipal
Code of the City of Aspen, to allow as permitted uses in the
Public Zone District maintenance shops and employee housing for
employees of the public use.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena, Aspen, CO 81611 (303) 925 -2020, ext. 223.
g /C. Welton Anderson
Chairperson, Aspen Planning and
Zoning Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on Februayr 27, 1986.
City of Aspen Account.
.spevi 'Lonsolidated Sanitation ( District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925 -3601 Tele. (303) 925 -2537
Feb. 20, 1986
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
The City Council of the City of Aspen
Mr. Steve Burstein
City /County Planning Dept.
City Hall
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Amendment to application for review,
Adminstration and Maintenance Facility,
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Subsquent to the submission of our application on Jan. 28,
1986 for exemption from the GMP review for the subject project,
the Board od Directors of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation
District, at their meeting of Feb. 10, 1986 decided to request
the following addition and amendment to said application,
plans of which are enclosed.
1. The addition of approximately 1,370 sq. ft. for future
employee housing, consisting of two apartment units:
One studio unit of 546 sq. ft. and one, one - bedroom
loft unit of 824 sq. ft.
At the initial phase of construction, the apartment
units will be roughed in, with interior partitions for
bearing only and plumbing and electrical services stubbed
and capped. Immediate use will be for storage only. As
demand arises for additional employee housing for the district,
these units will be finished. This additional space will
increase the total mumber of on -site employee apartments to
eight. Your consideration of this amendment to our application
is appreciated.
Respectfully submitted this 20th day of February, ruary, 1986.
I '
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Consolidated
Santation District.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925 -3601 Tele. (303) 925- 2537
AMR - 5 1986 r ,
March 3, •:.
di
Pitkin -Aspen Planning Dept.
% Steve Burnstein
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, Co 81611
RE: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Maintenance Building
Mr. Burnstein:
This is to verify that the maintenance building project of the
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District will not cause the district
to add any more employees. The work force will remain exactly the
same.
Sincerely
/li t ■
Heiko Kuhn, Manager
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
RE: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District SPA Amendment
and GMP Exemption for Essential Public Facilities
Parcel ID *2737- 073 -00 -004
DATE: May 28, 1986
LOCATION: 565 N. Mill Street
ZONING: Public
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The applicant requests approval to build a
4,154 square foot administrative and storage facility attached to
the existing office building at 565 N. Mill Street. An SPA
development area of approximately 32,200 square feet has been
delineated to contain the project. There are three main compo-
nents of the building: Office Space (1,026 sq.ft.); 2 -Bay
Vehicle Storage (1,564 sq. ft.); and, a 2 -Bay Carport for future
enclosure (1,564 sq. ft.) . Also proposed within the planning
area are two buried fuel tanks and fueling island, paved areas
for parking and circulation, landscaping and undergrounding of
existing utilities.
APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE CODE: The administrative and office
facility is eligible for a growth management competition exemp-
tion pursuant to Section 24- 11.2(e) for essential public facili-
ties. The applicant must demonstrate that a proposed facility "
. . . meets an essential governmental purpose, provides facili-
ties in response to the demands of growth and is not itself a
growth generator, is available for use by the general public,
services the needs of the local community and is a not - for - profit
venture." Impacts to be mitigated include " . . . those associ-
ated with the generation of additional employees; the demand for
parking, road and transit services; and the need for such basic
services as water supply, sewage treatment, drainage control,
fire and policy protection and solid waste disposal."
All of the area and bulk requirements in the public zone district
are set according to Section 24 -3.4 by an adopted plan for a
Specially Planned Area (SPA). Section 24 -7.7 states the review
criteria by which the precise plan shall be reviewed, including
most importantly:
1
"(1) Whether the proposal is compatible with neighboring
developments in terms of use, density, height, bulk, open
space, landscaping and other site and architectural design
features . . .
(2) Whether sufficient utilities and roads exist to service
the intended development.
(4) Whether the applicant has creatively employed land
planning techniques such as setbacks, clustering, screening,
buffering and architectural design 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.
(5) Whether the proposal is in compliance with the Aspen
Area General Plan."
Each of these items are addressed below under Staff Comments on
the proposal.
BACKGROUND: The existing office building which contains two (2)
employee units on the second floor was built in 1976. In 1981,
an SPA plan was approved for the construction of a four unit
employee housing project in the northwest portion of the pro-
perty. The sewage treatment facility was abandoned in 1983 and
dismantled and /or covered up in 1985.
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District submitted an applica-
tion for a maintenance facility and employee housing on this site
in February, 1986. However. upon P&Z's recommendation for denial
of a Code amendment allowing maintenance facilities and employee
housing zone district as conditional uses, the applicant submit-
ted an amended application in April. Council adopted an Ordi-
nance on May 27, 1986 making these conditional uses in the Public
zone district, but the applicant still prefers to go forward with
this alternative request.
PROBLEM DISCUSSION:
A. Referral Comments:
1. Engineering Department - In a memorandum from Jay
Hammond dated April 15, 1986 (Attachment B) the
following comments were given:
a. There is a narrow undefined parcel abutting Mill
Street that may be in County ownership. The
applicant should verify the ownership of the land
and obtain an appropriate easement to accommodate
the proposed driveway.
2
b. The proposed SPA boundary should be defined by a
metes and bounds description. The area for the
foundation drain routing should be deleted from
the described SPA.
c. The proposed site is not within 100 feet of the
floodplain and, therefore, no Stream Margin Review
is required. The Engineering Department recom-
mends testing by a geotechnical engineer to verify
the design relative to the groundwater conditions
on the site. There do not appear to be any other
geological hazards.
d. The site is under consideration as a potential
location for a City Street Department facility;
however, preliminary it appears to be unsuitable.
The Engineering Department is not recommending
that the proposal be put on hold until other
studies are completed.
2. Environmental Health: In a memorandum from Tom Dunlop
dated March 27, 1986 (Attachment C) the following
concerns were discussed:
a. Oil and grease from the storage facility bays
should be contained by sand traps similar to those
found in a service station. In a May 1, 1986,
memorandum Mr. Dunlop added that the proposed sand
traps discussed by the applicant are in confor-
mance with the policies of the Environmental
Health Department.
b. The Colorado Health Department and U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency should be contacted with
regard to the location, sizes, type, etc. of the
proposed fuel tanks. General criteria dictate
that the tanks must not corrode, must be com-
patible with the material they contain, and are
structurally sound.
c. If windblown dust becomes a source of complaints
during construction, the applicant must initiate
remedies such as watering, chemical dust suppres-
sion and fencing. Prompt revegetation and use of
pavement will provide long -term dust control.
3. Water Department: In a March 11, 1986 memorandum from
Jim Markalunas (Attachment D) , it is stated that water
will be available to the facility from existing water
mains.
4. Housing Authority: In a March 11, 1986 memorandum from
3
Ann Bowman (Attachment E) it is pointed out that there
are currently twelve (12) employees of the Sanitation
District. Verbally Ms. Bowman stated that the Housing
Authority accepted that no new employees would be
generated by the proposal.
B. STAFF COMMENTS: The Planning Office has the following
comments about the Sanitation District proposal:
1. Essential Public Facilities: In order to be eligible
for an exemption from the Growth Management Quota
System, the applicant must demonstrate that the
proposed project is an essential public facility and
that the impacts of the project will be mitigated. The
applicant has argued that the project is necessary for
the efficient operation of the Sanitation District.
More office space is needed as the present quarters are
somewhat cramped, and indoor storage space is necessary
for pipe and vehicles that are used almost exclusively
in the Aspen Area. Mr. Kuhn stated that it is approxi-
mately four (4) miles from the Hog Pastures Treatment
Plant next to the Airport Business Center, and this
site is too small for expansion. If the facility were
located at Hog Pastures, the eight (8) mile round trip
is costly, and emergency response time for the lines in
the City of Aspen would be unacceptably slaw according
to Mr. Kuhn.
As mentioned by the City Engineer, the City Streets
Department is in need of additional facility space, and
a study is under way to evaluate alternative sites.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that facilities in
the entire Aspen /Snowamss area should be consolidated.
While there may be many advantages to such a consolida-
tion of city, county and special district facilities,
there is no accepted plan to accommodate this develop-
ment program. At the present time, the only reasonable
site is the County location next to the bus maintenance
facility, which will not serve the ACSD needs. The
Planning Office believes it is inappropriate to delay
the Sanitation District project until other entities
develop their maintenance and storage facilities plans.
The Planning Office believes that the proposed project
appears to be necessary and does qualify for the
Essential Facilities GMP Exemption. Mitigation of the
impacts of the project will be discussed below,
incorporated into the SPA plan review.
2. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses: To the south
of the project are the Stephan Kaelin building and Mill
Street Venture in the Service /Commercial /Industrial
(S /C /I) zone district. The proposed facility does not
4
appear to create any conflicts with these adjacent
S /C /I uses. No significant noise, dust or fumes should
be created. The visual impacts of the Sanitation
District building, to the neighbors to the south,
considering its maximum height of 22 feet at a lower
grade sloping toward the river, the architectural style
and materials, and proposed landscaping, should not be
unacceptable.
To the north and west of the Sanitation District
development parcel is open space zoned Park. Further-
more, there is a significant amount of green area
within the Sanitation District Public zoned parcel that
is the result of successful revegetation after removal
of the treatment plant and snow dump. This green area
is part of the general open space along both sides of
the Roaring Fork River. It is highly desireable to
maintain the open space character of the general area.
Given the siting of the proposed structure towards the
south of the property, most of the area would remain
green space. This project would not appear to severely
derogate that open space; and the landscaping proposal
should be expanded to further soften the visual impacts
of the building from the Rio Grande Trail and the open
space along the river. It should be noted that the
Sanitation District has already done a great deal on
its awn volition to make the site attractively clean
and green. To insure future compatibility with the
river Greenway Plan, we suggest that the open space be
designated as open space in the SPA plan.
3. Utilities and Roads: The utilities are in place and
appear to be able to handle this project. Some
undergrounding will occur. Mill Street is capable of
handling the volume of traffic generated by the
project, estimated at 20 vehicle trips per day. Sight
distance is not a major problem. The access easement
issues raised by the Engineering Department should be
resolved.
4. Environmental Concerns: The Environmental Health
Department discussed two areas of concern that should
be further accounted for by the applicant. The fuel
tanks should meet the latest criteria for environmental
safety promulgated by the State Department of Health
and the EPA. In addition, dust suppression should be
monitored so that it does not become a problem during
construction, and revegetation should be accomplished
as soon after construction as possible.
As suggested by the Engineering Department, a geotech-
nical engineer should verify the design of the struc-
5
ture and drainage system with regard to the groundwater
conditions on the site. Sand traps should be installed
as represented in the application.
5. Land Planning Techniques: The SPA -set area and bulk
requirements as well as the SPA plan review criteria
encourage creative land planning techniques. The
building is sited behind the existing office building
and at a fairly low grade compared to nearby properties
and roads. Primarily for this reason, it appears that
the building will not have a great visual impact from
Mill Street, where the greatest number of people will
pass nearby the building. The other significant
viewplane is from the Rio Grande Trail and the river-
side. Additional tree plantings should be incorporated
in the plan to further screen the structure from those
views. The architectural design will match the
existing office, using brick, cedar paneling and a flat
roof. Garage doors should be painted the same approxi-
mate brown of the brick so to not call any unnecessary
attention to the building.
Three spruce trees west of the existing office would be
relocated to the south side of the proposed building
and this appears acceptable.
6. Compliance with Aspen Area General Plan: The 1973
Aspen General Land Use Plan designates the site as open
space, however, shows the Sanitation Plant in this
location. The Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Re-
creation /Open Space /Trails Element (July 1985) shows a
portion of the site as existing open space and part of
the area as proposed open space. There are no proposed
trails nor identification of property for acquisition
that the proposed development site would effect.
Nonetheless, it would be desirable to keep the portion
of the site near the river (outside the SPA plan area)
open green space and make access by the public pos-
sible. This action would help implement the goals of
the Open Space Plan.
7. Schedule: The building and landscaping should be
completed by May, 1987, or else be subject to an
amendment to the SPA plan.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends to the Planning
Commission to recommend City Council to approve the proposed SPA
Plan Amendment and GMP Exemption for Essential Public Facilities
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall verify the ownership of the land
abutting Mill Street and obtain an easement to accommodate
6
the proposed driveway which is acceptable to the City
Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
project.
2. Testing by a geotechnical engineer to verify the design
relative to the groundwater condition in the site shall be
accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
3. Sand trap within the drainage system for the storage
facility bays shall be installed as represented in the
application.
4. The applicant shall contact the State Department of Health
and the U.S. Envrionmental Protection Agency for the most
current information regarding fuel tank environmental safety
and shall submit a more detailed proposal based on the most
applicable criteria to the satisfaction of the Environmental
Health Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
5. Trees shall be replanted as represented in the proposed
landscape plan. Ten additional trees shall be planted to
better screen the east, west and south elevations of the
proposed building.
6. The applicant shall designate the northerly portion of the
property as open space.
7. An SPA plan shall be filed with the County Clerk and
Recorder's Office, meeting the requirements of the Engineer-
ing Department prior to the issuance of a building permit
for the project.
8. Construction, paving and landscaping shall be accomplished
by no later than May, 1987. An improvements guarantee and
bonding sufficient to cover paving landscaping shall be
filed to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Engineer-
ing Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
SB .2
7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office
FROM: Jay Hammond, City Engineering
DATE: April 15, 1986
RE: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District SPA Precise
Plan Amendment
Having reviewed the above application for SPA precise plan
amendment for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD)
site on North Mill Street, the City Engineering Department would
offer the following comments:
1. Access - As indicated in the application, access to the site
is across an undefined parcel that may be in County ownership.
The applicants should verify the status of the parcel and obtain
an appropriate access easement to accommodate the proposed
driveway.
2. Utilities - The application is a little unclear as to what
power lines are overhead and what is to be buried. We would
request clarification on the status of the line along the southerly
property line.
3. The proposed SPA boundary should be defined by a metes and
bounds description so that it is clear what portions of the total
parcel have been planned via S.P.A. zoning. We would suggest
deleting the foundation drain routing from the described S.P.A.
4. Floodplain - Current floodplain mapping would indicate that
the proposal does not conflict with the 100 year floodplain, nor
does it fall within 100 feet which would require review. The
site also does not appear threatened by any other geological
hazards although we would recommend testing by a geotechnical
engineer to verify the design relative to the groundwater conditions
on the site.
5. This site is currently under consideration as a potential
site for a City Streets Department operations facility by our
fleet management consultant. Preliminary indications are that it
is probably not large enough and that other considerations such
as the need to relocate existing housing and its proximity to the
riverway will probably preclude serious consideration for such a
facility. We are therefore reluctant to recommend that the ACSD
proposal be put on hold at this time but wish to bring this
consideration to the attention of the various reviewing bodies.
JH /co /ACSDSPAP1anAmend
ASPENOPITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Burstein
Planning Office
From: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director
Environmental Health Department
Date: May 1, 1986
Re: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
Case No. 02A -86
This office has no further comments to add to the memorandum from
the Environmental Health Dept. to the Planning Office dated March
27,1986 concerning this project.
The description of the oil and grease traps and their maintenance
as discussed in a letter dated April 25,1986 from the District to
the Planning Office is in conformance with policies of this
office.
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 61611 303/925-2020
E
1
i
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE
FROM: ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER
DATE: MARCH 11, 1986
RE: ASPEN CONSOLIDATION DISTRICT
ISSUE: Approval of the employee housing proposed by the appli-
cant for the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
BACKGROUND: For many years, up to 1967, the Aspen Sanitation
District used the property at 565 No. Mill St., as the primary
sewage treatment facility for the City of Aspen. In 1967, the
Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District was formed and the major
treatment facility was relocated to the Hog Pasture site opposite
the airport. From 1967 to 1983, the Aspen site was used to treat
over -flow sewage loads that the Metro plant could not handle. As
capacity expansions took place at the Metro plant in 1969, 1974,
and 1980, the facilities at the Aspen site were gradually aban-
doned, until 1983, when only the ponds were used as temporary
holding areas for overflow sewage. Up to 1976, the district's
administration offices were locate in one of the older building
on site. In 1976, a new building was constructed, containing the
office and administration functions as well as two employee
apartments on the second floor. In 1981, four more employee
housing units were constructed and in 1985 all of the treatment
buildings and polishing ponds were dismantled and /or covered up.
This event completed the transition of the site use from a
primary treatment facility to an area containing all the necess-
ary support facilities complementary to the Hog Pasture Treatment
Facility.
This application increases the administration area by 955 sf.
employee housing 1,370 sf., maintenance - carport 3,264 and
circulation- storage by 55 sf. The present employee housing
consists of two 2 bedrooms and two one bedroom. The employee's
currently working for the Sanitation District are 12 in total.
The current housing equals (two at 2.25 and two at 1.75 = total
of 8 employee units.
The proposed new employee housing consists of a 546 sf. studio
and a one bedroom loft at 824 sq. ft. This equals (studio = 1
emp and 1 bedroom equals 1.75) a total of 2.75 added to the
existing employee housing the total is 10.75 units. Mr. Kuhn
states that there are currently 12 employees. However, the new
units are proposed to be used as storage and not finished for use
1
until sometime in the future. The existing 4 units are deed
restricted to moderate income. The 2 employee apartments on the
second floor built in 1976 are not restricted.
Staff Recommendation: The Housing Office recommends approval of
the new employee housing if they are deed restricted to moderate
income at time of C.O. and suggests that the 2 employee apart-
ments not currently deed restricted be restricted to moderate
income. This area should be employee housing. Other use would
be inconsistent with zoning. The following deed restriction
shall be incorporated at time of C.O.
The Applicants shall covenant with the City of Aspen that the
employee housing units be restricted in terms of use and occu-
pancy to the rental guidelines established and indexed by the
City Council's designee for moderate income employee housing
units at the time or prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy. Verification of employment and income of those
persons living in the moderate income employee units shall be
completed and filed with the City Council or its designee by the
owner commencing on the date of recording hereof, in the Pitkin
County Real Property records and annually thereafter. These
covenants shall be deemed to run with the land as a burden
thereto for the benefit of and shall be specifically enforceable
by the City or its designee by any appropriate legal action
including injunction, abatement or eviction of noncomplying
tenancy during the period of life of the last surviving member of
the presently existing City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, plus twenty -one (21) years, or for a period of fifty
(50) years from the date of recording hereof in the Pitkin County
real property records, whichever period shall be greater.
The Owner of the unit shall have the right to lease the units to
qualified employees of his operation or the City of Aspen and
Pitkin County. Such individual may be employed by the Owner
provided such persons fulfill the requirements of a qualified
employee. "Qualified employee" as used herein shall mean any
person currently residing in and employed in the City of Aspen
for a minimum average of 30 hours per week, nine months out of
any twelve -month period, who shall meet moderate income and
occupancy eligibility requirements established and then applied
by the Housing Authority with respect to employee housing.
No lease agreement executed for occupancy of the employee rental
unit shall provide for a rental term of less than six consecutive
months.
When a lease is signed with a tenant, a copy shall be sent to the
Housing Office so that a current file shall be maintained on each
unit.
2
Deed restriction shall be approved and signed by the Chairman of
the Housing Authority prior to recordation and a copy of the
recorded document shall be provided to the Housing Authority
Office after recordation.
*NOTE: The Housing Authority would consider giving the applicant
credit against future development of employee housing for deed
restricting all of the units at the Aspen Consolidation District.
3
MEMO TO: Steve Burstein, Planning Office N. I 2 e
FROM: Karen McLaughlin
DATE: May 9, 1986
RE: ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT
I have reviewed the application in this case, and call your
attention to the following provisions of the code:
This application, as I understand it, asks for additional
square footage as follows: Administrative: 955, Employee Housing:
1370, Maintenance /Carport: 3264, Circulation /Storage: 55.
I believe this expansion constitutes a "substantial amendment"
to the precise plan, and therefore must be treated as a new
application, including compliance with the standards for review
set forth in Section 247.7.
As you know, the burden is on the applicant to establish
reasonableness and suitability, conformity with the code, minimiza-
tion of adverse effects, compliance with the original intent of
the plan, and reasonable conformance with the approval initially
granted to the conceptual plan. See Section 24- 7.7(b).
I understand from the application that you feel this would
be exempt from growth management quotas. Please call to discuss
your thoughts on this. I do not understand the grounds for such
exemption in this case.
Please note that under Section 27- 7.7(c) final approval may
only be granted if growth management quotas are obtained.
I would be happy to discuss this with you in greater detail.
z
gel St'? A' r o '°
i C m rJI Lnv
;0 CO,,.7) - e r ��.
LI-
PRE — APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT: Nt," P.± r J„n':.: 8:4 , „)cta „
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: -"t' '' * -h g as- 3 Lim/ o) , k., +, 36
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE:,
OWNERS NAME: nSCZ� i t "t - j ; i ;,•,r- f.J t_11)1
:r[
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application: 5PAP21— 6” v„ '. l : � PooC,l lm`; (2)n9 ;; PUB
2. Describe action /type of development being requested:
7- re • r - lr .' / - f 1, 'tjyi • iv % Y.41:1.
f) 4,111 to a l o ne S Or: cP et; ",, n;9J00Y h{1/4J 164ri»,21 (^' s_,! r;1e411wh /
L
3. Areas in which Applicant has been requested to respond, types of
reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments
r
P L i r _ _ _ 1 -. „.a a . -!�f f fp{ lka1 - ", 5 ' �
r k W l .(e-b to ""li
! r
! "."
0q114 Clf j^ $1q„v & 4 F ,6;. C4 _ ) 2 %,. f ', ( T + L iar;
;It," —
")Sjr.�r:: )� ea-T. J0, - s.+•, nJiart•.F{±: t Q,f -t pia
Pitt 1 r rr,
NI - an
4. Review is: (P&Z Only) (CC /BOCC Only) N(P&Z then to CC /BOCC)
5. Public Bearing: (YES), (NO)
6. Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADJACENT PROPERTY h7 Y p c . x i:
OWNERS? (YES) (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES) :(NO)
7. What fee was applicant requested to submit:
8. Anticipated date of submission:
9. COMMENTS /UNIQUE CONCERNS:Ar' -
' a : r a ' r e al r : . l } ,, ,,
.y
CRRTTFTCATE OF MATLING
// ' I hereby certify that on this ! ' d ay of t
198 (7 , a true and correct copy of the attached Not ce of Public
Hearing was deposited in the United States mail, first -class
postage prepaid, to the adjacent property owners as indicated on
the attached list of adjacent property owners which was supplied
to the Planning Office by the applicant in regard to the case
named on the aforementioned public notice.
i
Ja Lynn Rac -k
a ,
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT SPA ANENDNENT
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, June 3, 1986 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 o'clock P.M.,
before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, in City Council
Chambers, 130 South Galena, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an applica
tion an application submitted by Heiko Kuhn for the Aspen Consolidated
Sanitation District, requesting approval of an amendment to the SPA
Plan. Said amendment request consists of an addition to the existing
office building to contain administrative office space and vehicle
storage. The property is located northwest of and adjacent to the
Mill Street Bridge and along the Rio Grande Trail just behind the Post
Office.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 925 -2020,
Ext. 223.
g/C Welton Anderson
Chairperson, Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission
Published in the Aspen Times on May 1, 1986.
City of Aspen Account.
\ ,
Mr. Harley Baldwin
I 1 N. 72n d . St.
Nev, Yo rk C ity, New York 10023
I
iki\ Mrs. E. P. Paepke
Morrison & Morrison Ltd.
105 W. Adams St.
Chicago, I1 60603
1
mll6 016y1
. cultural Services, Inc.
Mr. &Mrs. Red Rowland
s9 ... _... P. 0. Box 502
M111 St. Venture
P. O. Box Q
Aspen, Co. 81612
Stefan Kaolin
557 N. Mill St.
Aspen, Co 81611
NIt 00 2cosNL.N1 os/os/e6
" 1
RETURN TO SENDER
4 , ca ,,,,,,, , . , e , .:\ t■ii^s, s" h '
NO roRwARorNG ORDER ON FiLE
ONADLE TO FOWA
RRD
(
0
'• S • Vent
Ole
p. 0 2" Q8 2
lish c, . `oi
43/444.4 sur -4 410 / „/
- '' - 4 - 4'••..., t /