The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutcoa.lu.sp.ACSD Spa Amend.84A89 / M ~ CAsELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen DATE RECEIVED: 9/1/89 DATE COMPLETE: PARCEL ID AND CASE NO. 2737-073-00-004 84A-89 STAFF MEMBER: /....t-1'M>..:r- PROJECT NAME: Amendment & GMOS Project Address: Legal Address: Aspen Consolidated Exemption 565 N. Mill st. Sanitation District SPA APPLICANT: ACSD Applicant Address: 565 N. Mill st. REPRESENTATIVE: Warren Palmer. Representative Address/Phone: Architect P. o. Box 2684 Aspen. CO 81612 5-'776 PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: TYPE OF APPLICATION: $830.00 NO. OF 1 STEP: COPIES RECEIVED: 3 V 2 STEP: P&Z Meeting Date )0/ / 1- , PUBLIC HEARING: ~ YES NO VESTED RIGHTS: NO CC Meeting Date ,,/r; I PUBLIC HEARING: YES @ VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO Planning Director Approval: Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Paid: Date: REFERRALS: ~it~ Attorn~ ~ .Engi~e 7 Hous1ng D1r. Aspen Water City Electric Envir. Hlth. Aspen Consolo S.D. Mtn. Bell Parks Dept. Holy Cross Fire Marshall Building Inspector Roaring Fork Energy Center School District Rocky Mtn Nat Gas State Hwy Dept(GW) State Hwy Dept(GJ) Other DATE REFERRED: 9/rZs!J1 INITIALS: IJ" FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED:/"')"'-.?, i- '10 ~ City Atty ~City Engineer ~zOning ___ ~ Housing Other: -.........;..----~ INITIAL: ~ Env. Health Q Ji. ~~~~ / ?J FILE STATUS AND LOCATION: r ,-, ~ y WRAP UP DISTRICT HOUSING SUMMARY SHEET FOR: ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION FINAL SPA AMENDMENT AND GMQS EXEMPTION FOR AFFORDABLE The city council, at their November 13, 1989 meeting, approved the ACSD' s request for an amendment to the SPA Plan and GMQS Exemption for the development of two deed restricted housing units on the North Mill Street site with the following conditions: 1. Before the issuance of a building permit, the deed restricted units shall be reviewed and approved by the Housing Authority. 2. Before the issuance of a building permit, a site plan showing the two new parking spaces shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. 3. An amended plat shall be filed with the Engineering Department. 4. A 4X4 utility easement shall be located on the plat. f': 'fc../ ("'\ -, MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., city Manager FROM: Leslie Lamont and Amy Margerum, Planning DATE: November 2, 1989 RE: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Final SPA Amendment & GMQS Exemption ----------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------~-------------- SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends approval of the GMQS exemption and Final SPA Plan amendment for the addition of two deed restricted employee units. COUNCIL GOAIS: This proposal reflects the intent of Council Goals 1- the prov1s1on of affordable housing, 2-housing for employees that would otherwise move downvalley, 4-in town housing reduces automobile dependency, and 11-working with ACSD to provide affordable housing. BACKGROUND: At their october 17 meeting, the Planning and Zoning commission reqommended to Council approval of the Final SPA Plan amendment and the GMQS Exemption for the two affordable units with conditions. History: 1976- a 1,440 square foot office building with two employee units was built; 1981- a SPA plan was approved for the construction of a 4,032 square foot, four unit employee housing project in the north west portion of the property. A development area of 32,200 square feet was delineated in the SPA .Plan for project development. 1983- the sewage treatment facility was abandoned, and dismantled and/or covered up on 1985; 1986- a SPA amendment was approved for the development of a 4,154 square foot administrative and storage facility attached to .the existing office building. PROBLEM DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Section 7-804 the increased employee housing is an amendment to the Final SPA Plan requiring review by the Commission at a public hearing and review and approval at Council. A GMQS exemption for affordable housing, pursuant to Section 8-104 (C) (1) (c), is two step process with a public hearing at the Commission and a review and approval by Council. The ACSD building proposes to add two employee units to the which contains offices, storage facilities existing and two r ,'-' ("'\ employee units. The proposed units, a 366 square foot studio and one 662 square foot one bedroom unit, will be constructed on the second floor adjacent to office space. Please see attached plan. Amendment to the ,SPA, __The ,proposal is not an insubstantial amendment to the SPA pian because the residential density will be increased by 33%. There are already 6 employee units on site. Two units are attached to the existing office/storage building and 4 are located in the northwest portion of the property. The addition of two new employee units, totalling 1,028 square feet, is consistent with the original SPA Plan locating ACSD services and employee housing on this site. In the SPA Plan a total of 32,200 square feet of development area was approved for the site. The addition of the two units increases the total improvements on site to 10,654 square feet. GMQS Exemption - The adopted SPA Plan identifies the coexistence of ACSD services and housing on this site. The proposed units will be deed restricted, to be reviewed and approved by the Housing Authority, pursuant to the 1989 Affo~dable Housing Guidelines. The units will be used b'y District employees. The District also intends to provide two new parking spaces to accommodate the new units. ADVISORY COMMITTEE VOTE: -2-- FOR --2- AGAINST RECOMMENDATION: Staff recomlllel')df; approval of the Final SPA Plan amendment and the GMQS exemption for two affordable housing units with the following conditions: 1. Before the issuance of a building permit, the deed restricted units shall be reviewed and approved by the Housing Authority. 2. Before the issuance of a building permit, a site plan showing the two new parking spaces shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. 3. An amended plat shall be filed with the Engineering Department. 4. A 4x4 utility easement shall be located on the plat. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the application for an amendment to the Final SPA Plan and GMQS Exemption. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: Site Plan ll/ACSD cc 2 , 0/ -)""" J MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and zoning commission FROM: Leslie, Lamont, Planner RE: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Final SPA Amendment and GMQS Exemption DATE: October 17, 1989 ==============================~===~=====~===~=~=~==~=~=======7=== SUMMARY: The planning Office recommends approval of the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District's (ACSD) amendment to the Final SPA Plan and a GMQS exemption for the addition of two affordable housing units. Pursuant to Section 7-804 the increased employee housing is an amendment to the Final SPA Plan requiring review by the Commission at a public hearing and review and approval at Council. A GMQS exemption for affordable housing, pursuant to section 8-104 (C) (1) (c), is a two step process with a public hearing at the Commission and a review and approval by Council. , . APPLICANT: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District LOCATION: 565 North Mill street, Aspen ZONING: Public APPLICANTS REQUEST: The ACSD seeks a, GMQS Exemption and amendment to the Final SPA Plan for two units of affordable housing. BACKGROUND: 1976- a 1,440 square foot office building with two employee units was built; 1981- a SPA plan was approved for the construction of a four unit employee housing project, of 4,032 square feet, in the north west portion of the property, a development area of 32,200 square feet was delineated in the SPA Plan for project development. 1983- the sewage treatment facility was abandoned, and dismantled and/or covered up on 1985; 1986- a SPA amendment was approved for the development of a 4,154 square foot administrative and storage facility attached to the existing office building. REFERRAL COMMENTS: Because of the small scope of this application, referral agencies were not contacted. STAFF COMMENTS: The ACSD proposes to add two employee units to the existing building which contains offices, storage facilities and 2 employee units. The proposed units, a 366 square foot ("'\ ,-, ,. '" studio and one 662 square foot one constructed on the second flooradj acent space. Please see attached plan. Amendment to the SPA -The proposal is not an insubstantial amendment to the SPA plan because the residential density will be increased by 33%. There are already 6 employee units on site. Two units are attached to the exifOting office/storage building and 4 are located in the northwest portion o.f the property. bedroom unit, will be to second floor office The addition of two new employee units, totalling 1,028 square feet, is consistent with the original SPA Plan locating ACSD services and employee housing on this site. In the SPA Plan a total of 32,200 square feet of development area was approved for the site. The addition of "the two units increases the total improvements on site to 10,654 square feet. GMQS Exemption - The adopted SPA Plan identifies the coexistence of ACSD services and housing on this site. The proposed units will be deed restricted pursuant to the 1989 Affordable Housing Guidelines to be reviewed and approved by the Housing Authority. The units will be used by District employees. The District also intends to provide two new parking spaces to accommodate the new units. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Office recommends that the Planning and Zoning commission recommend to the Counc:il approval of the SPA Plan amendment and the GMQS exemption for two affordable housing units with the following conditions: 1. Before the issuance of a building permit, the deed restricted units shall be reviewed 'and approved by the Housing Authority. 2. Before the issuance of a building permit, a site plan showing the two new parking spaces shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. 3. An amended plat shall be filed with the Engineering Department. 4. A 4X4 utility easement shall be lcoated on the plat. 2 ,....., , ~>~ /"'.,',.., ," ........, , .... --'" 'y" ~ ()... ~- ," ' .: r. .......... - I~ ''-/ " ....." ~II. . ~~'4~ .' .57' -......:::: 'v ..: /;;(;:> ~1f; I /. ---...., \ / , I " ,'..... / \ r...... \ 1',{/; \ ~~/' "n ' 'Ii, f:..""" "-r ./'-------....... '.. \ , , " ,......... . ....... .... .... ''r-.., .... ""- J \ \ '. \ \ \ ~~\ ~\ ~, , ~.~ . . ~"'c ~ //""';s,~~' ,~ /~ )''''-- /' ~ \~ ~"" --7' ~.. ". / ~.J -q;,f " .~ " " r:::.,1""~. i:7rA~ k,..', (?W1 ,.." -At'";~ ~~\i(}N P~'?-r. ~\I~r~ L-l'?'I C1F- ~ ..pt.z.O~, bW~7 ~ I . l2.lS"ZA 1!e:"TRo .\4 ~ If" A Ef"GlLE. G/O Mo(Z.l2.\~'(.f i> M-OlZ-tu~N I LW~ ~C)S tw~T ~AM7 ~ ~ G<Af?O \ I \..A- . &;~ (J '7 --Z . -nz:1J.'~ "'E:I~f50\Z.~ COMt"^. P~r-.. ~Vv~ ~ CQ~ .,..... ~VVI"\"'2:D ~~~ 4- ~~ P Jl..V~ p ~OtJ tz.aI>..p L--H\...L.~ r Of+-le? 4~~ ". '7"'f1C:.~ \o!.A-fSLHJ ? '? 7 NO. VI \ u... s..T: ~~, WL". . f8\~U. ',.." .. I 4-. M ~ LL. .~--nzeer 'l6Nl'V\-1ZE. cf;. 'F.W.tv\.c... '. ..-. .. ~ It 7011\1"14 ~I\.r&:- ~. A-<:P~ I c.o L.O ~II#'II mi? e-e.N.~~ ~ OAL..\'iMZA-L. ~VlL.IIZ:.~ L..Tt::>. ~~~ ~ep..~~~E.IN~~ "'0~~ 0 (P. FUE::."E..~' ~\j\{ltJ fkJ'f.~7- ~ I UJl.(? . ~ . c.L..'1'&e. M,- ~U W ~ ?eet 'SNdW~VII .1 P"&&;::.I WI.-O ~W4- ~. ~ ~c. -rvtz.1 p... ~u....E=1Z- ~ II~/ ~(U~ ~ 4-... \V\1~ ~~\J "?tl-S ~ \ rz..l/ ~-r: ~\"">(IJ , \J aJ'f1~ 1/\ -z...1~ ~ '_-1_ . "', ~ ~t<t. M<J: rt:,~PfZ.(Z.wow~,,~z. C I ~o. -al~ MMJlJ'f . ~()~ \o-n...~ ~ I UJU'tz:.A1>t? ~l"l?.. Vl. ~~~'€.. j!.O~ "'Z..~ 4-- ~lA""L "'P>rt( . : 9T,~t4iJ V~~t-J' l~ (?00~o 1--"'2. . Q"1\1,fiZ;:.J - ~woOlP p.;.o~ ?~ ~ I CIlL-O. ~ (7- A-L-4- d? . ~IT"(' tJ"F ~f"~ ~PeN ~ ~tz- E~U\-~ ~~ ?~~~ ~ I\"?\ N" c..-ov JJ"To/ ' . " , . \A~I~ '?c.~~ ~T"~~ .~' . p. 't:: ~ 6- . r,.. i '-'tz.OP.-D ~. , rl f'l PUBLIC NOTICE RE: ASPEN CONSOLIDATED SANITATION DISTRICT SPA AMENDMENT AND GMQS EXEMPTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 17, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4: 30 P.M. before the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO to consider an application from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District requesting an approval of an amendment to the SPA Development Plan and GMQS Exemption in order to expand their on-site affordable housing by two units, a 366 s.f. studio and a 662 s.f. one bedroom. The property is located at 565 N. Mill Street. For further information, please contact the Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, (303) 920-5090. sIC. Welton Anderson. Chairman Aspen Planning and Zoning commission --------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------- Published in The Aspen Times on September 28, 1989. city of Aspen Account. r'\ (') MEMORANDUM TO: city Engineer FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office RE: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District SPA Amendment & GMQS Exemption DATE: september 25, 1989 ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Attached for your review and comments is an application from ACSD requesting approval to construct to additional affordable housing units on-site. Please review this material and return your comments no later than October 6, 1989. Thank you. f'""l .~ ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE 130 S. Galena street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (303) 920-5090 September 25, 1989 Warren Palmer, Architect P. o. Box 2684 Aspen, CO 81612 RE: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District,SPA Amendment & GMQS Exemption Dear Warren, This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have determined that your application is complete. We have scheduled your application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing on Tuesday, October 17, '1989 at a meeting to begin at 4: 30. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your application is available at the Planning Office. Notice to adjacent property owners and posting of a sign on the property are the responsibility of the applicant. If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont, the planner assigned to your case. Sincerely, Debbie Skehan Administrative Assistant ~ f) WARREN L. PALMER Architect n P.O. BOX 2684 ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 (303) 925-2776 1 Sep t. 89 Aspen / Pitkin County Planning Dept. 130 South Galena Aspen, Color'ado 81611 RE: Aspen Sanitation District Employee Housing GMQS Exeption request. Planning Office: I am acting as authorized representative of the Aspen Consol idated Sanitation District, located at 565 N. Mill St., Aspen, COlorado, 925-2537, for their project to construct two new Employee Housing Units at the District Offices. The property is more fully described as a Specially Planned Area, located at 565 N. Mill St. and more specifically as per the attached surve)'. The Aspen Sanitation District is proposing to construct two new Affordable Employee Housing Units, in addition to the six existing units at the site. The new units would consist of one, studio unit of 366 sf. and one, one bedroom unit of 662 sf. The units will be deed restricted as per Housing Authority guidel ines, the City Council and its housing designee and used for District employees. ' In addition to this response letter, I am including site plan, floor plans and elevations of the proposed project, which graphically describe the relevant features of the Development. w~ 'f~ vJarren Pa 1 mer Authorization for Warren as Representative by the Aspen Consol idated Sanitatton District. ~~ ."-'-..c.l..........E'J signed: I ~ ./-v..U,.... 9- (- fi' ( date: ,\ /'iii 6) """,-,'~<';;t\(":'?>::i;;r"~:,"': f'JJ:AND~~~Cifrom . iJ ::~:= ~~:~ ~ ~/7:t'r) , '. .' (:inli.cate street address, lot & block 11IlDiler, legal description 'Where awroPriate) 3)Present.Zanin:J _H-t.17U,- 4) lot Size .iWk.-. AwUcant's Name, ~ & Blane 11 A<?FV.l ut-l0CL~.-P ~~ 17~lcr_ t701,? ~,. MH I <71, 4"Z~-2t;7~ L, ?iT~ 1) ~- 2) 5) Reflr:sehtative's Name, ~ & Blane # , \ , 7) , Type of AwUcation (please check all that awIy) : Onlitianal Use _ Con::eptual SPA _ O:lnoeptual Historic DeIr. _ Final Historic DeIr. .'.,VI.': -'- ~;,.1 RellieW:' _ Final SPA 8040 Greenline _ Con::eptual :roo _ Minor Hist:oric DeIr. ,'. , ~ stream Margin, Final :roo _ Hist:ari.c n>nn1ition . Hist:ari.c Des. tian - 1.gIIa QQS Allotment ~~ Exalptian H:xmt:ain VieW Plane, ' SUbdivisian' - \ -, ~. O:x1daniniumization _ Text;IMap A1IIen:luIeI/L _ lot SpUt/IDt Line .l\dju..L-:./t '8) Descriptian. of Ex:ist:iDJ' Uses "(l"mh>r am type of ex:i.stin;J st:J:uctm'es; awroximate sq. ft.; pmh>r of ~..........; any previals awrovals granted to the pJ:qlerty) . 9) ( ,t:- ~b't.. <1'* ) l~ ," 0"'1"""1->1'" ~ - d/''/~k. ?-. t _t-I ~ C/' _~~ .~ ~~~ ~d2~d 1 ".. " ,.. ,:,,,rTt 10) Have :yaI att:ached the follCM.i.rg? -Y.- Respanse to AttadJment 2, MinilIum Snhn;""".tan 0::lIltent:s 1- Respanse to AttadJment 3, Specific Snhn;"""ianO::llltent:s 2- Respanse to AttadJment 4, Review stamards fai: Your Application / ',~ "'-"'--"" .." "'"p."" 1""\ (j ~~ MEHORANDUM TO: FROM: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission Steve Burstein, Planning Office Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District SPA Amendment and GMP Exemption for Essential Public Facilities Parcel ID 12737-073-00-004 May 28, 1986 RE: DATE: =============================================================== . 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 cevelopment 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. fL): 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 circulatio.n, landscaping and under grounding 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 publ ic facil i- ties. The applicant must demonstrate that a proposed facility .. . . . meets an essential. governmental purpose, provides facH i- . tics in response to the demands of grow th and is not itself a growth generator, is avaiJ.able for use by the gener.al public, services the needs of the local cowmunity 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, se-lage treatment, drainage control, fire and pol icy 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 reviC\'l criteria b-] which the precise plan shall be revie-led, including most importantly: 1 ','" / C1 .. (1) Whether the proposal is compatible with neighboring developments in terms of use, densi ty, height, bul k, open space, landscaping and other site and architectural 'design features . . . (2) Whether sufficient utilities and roads exist to service the intended development. (4) t-1hether the applicant has creatively employed land planning techniques such as setbacks, clustering, screening, buff er ing and architectural design to preserve significant view planes, avoid adver se env ironnental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. (51 l'1hether the proposal is in compliance with the Aspen Area General Plan." PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Comments: 1. memorandum from .J ay (Attachment B) the Engineering Department - In a Hanunond dated April 15, 1986 following comments were given: a. There is a narrow undefined parcel abutting rHll Street that may be in County ownership. The appl icant should verify the ownership of the land and obtain an appropriate easement to accommodate the proposed driveway. 2 f"""', ! () \ ,d' "" M (1) Whether the proposal is compatible with neighboring developments in terms of use, densi ty, height, bul k, open space, landscaping and other site and architectural design features. . . (2) Nhe~her sufficient util ities and roads exist to service the intended development. (4) Nhether 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) l.rhether the proposal is in compliance with the Aspen Area General Plan." ,: , ~.' ~ - Each of these items are addressed belQ.'l under Staff Comments on the proposal. BACKGROUND: The existing office building ~lhich contains two (2) employee units on the second floor was built in 1976. In 1981, an SP/I. pI an was approved for the construction of a four unit employee housing project in the nor thw es t por ti on of the pro- perty. The sewage treatment facil ity ~las 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, 1,986. However, upon P&Z'S recommendation for denial of a Code amendment all~ling 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 ~:ay 27, 1986 making these conditional uses in the Public zone district, but the applicant still prefers to go for:ward with this alternative request. '; ;1 , :i " ~ . :j i~ , ~, , ~ ,: , " I', ., PROBLEM DISCUSSION: A. Referral Comments: 1. Engineering Department - In a HallUnond dated April 15, 1986 following comments were given: memorandum from Jay (Attachment B) the a. There is a narrow undefined parcel abutting IHll 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 r'l n b. The proposed SPA boundary should be defined by a metes and bounds description. The areii 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 o.ther geological hazards. d. The site is under consideration as a potential location f or a City Street Department fa c il i ty ; hO,o1ever, 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 dated ~Iarch 27, 1986 (Attachnent C) concerns were discussed: from Tom Dunlop the fOllowing 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 "Iay 1, 1986, memorandum ',!r. 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 Coloraco Health Department and U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency should be contacted wi th 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 ~lith 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 f!arch 11, 1986 memorandum from Jim rlarkalunas (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 . . '11""\"-."" i"""'\ :l Ann Bowman (Attachment E) it is pointed out that there are currently twelve (12) employees of the Sanitation District. Verbally ~Is. Bowman stated that the Housing Authority accepted that no new employees ~Iould be generated by the proposal., B. STAFF COM~lENTS: 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 Hanagement Quota System, the appl icant 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. ,Mo.i:e 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 slow according to Hr. 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 Asoen/Snowamss area should be consolidated. While there may be many advantages to such a consolida- tion of city, county and special district facil ities, 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 Distr ict project until other entities develop their maintenance and storage facilities plans. The Planning Office bel ieves that the proposed proj ect appears to be necessary and does qualify for the Essential Facil ities GHP Exemption. ~~itigation of the impacts of the project will be discussed below, incorporated into the SPA plan revi~~. 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 . ,-... f. ) ("'\' \:... ".:c/ appear to create any conflicts with these a~jacent 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 ICMer grade sloping tCMard the' river, the architectural style and materials, and proposed landscaping, should not be unacceptabl e. 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 resul t of successful reveqetation 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 tCMards the south of the property, most of the area \vould 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 o.m volition to make the site attractively clean and green. To insure future compatibility with the river GreerMay 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 \vill 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 maj or problem. The access easement issues rais~d by the Engineering Department should be resolved. II i I ! I 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 "'v,' t""'\ 1""\ t..,...,'"..:, .'7 ture and drainage conditions on the as represented in system with regard to the groundwater si te. Sand traps should be installed the appl ication. 5. Land Planning Techniques: The SPA-set area and bul k 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 w ill not have a great visual impact from l.till 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 desicn 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 arrj unnecessary attention to the building. Three spruce trees w"est of the existing office would be relocated to the 130uth 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 ~ocation. 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 \~ould 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 Hay, 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 SP1\. Plan Amendment and GHP Exemption for Essential Publ ic Facil ities subject to the foll~~ing conditions: 1. The applicant shall verify the ownership of the land abutting Mill Street and obtain an easement to accommodate 6 .~... ,",:,,"-c.,,..,, r'\ ;j (""\ , ,,) the propOsed Engineer pri or proj ect. 2. Testing by a geotechnical engineer to verify the design, relative to the grounallater condition in the site shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to 'the issuance of a building permit. driveway which is acCeptable ,to the City to the issuance of a building permit for the 3. Sand trap within the drainage system for the storage facHi ty bays shall be installed as represented in the appl icati on. 4. The appl icant shall contact the State Department of Heal th and the U.S. Envriordllental 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 -..... ""_M" '..j,., ...,..1""'. C)" ' A T"T1:rw..- 8 ( , MEMORANDUM FROM: Steve Burstein, Planning Office Jay Hamm'Ond, City Engineering * April 15, 1986 TO: DATE: ================================================================== Aspen C'Ons'Olidated Sanitati'On District SPA Precise Plan Amendment RE: Having reviewed the abeve applicatien fer SPA precise plan amendment fer the Aspen Censelidated Sanitatien District (ACSD) site en Nerth Mill Street, the City Engineering Department weuld 'Offer the--following cemments: . \ 1. 'Access _ As indicated in the applicatien, access te the site is acress an undefined parcel that may be in County 'Ownership. The applicants sheuld verify the status 'Of the parcel and 'Obtain an apprepriate access easement te accemmedate the prepesed driveway. 2. Utilities - The applicatien is a little unclear' as te what power lines are 'Overhead and what is te be buried. We weuld request clarificati'On en the status 'Of the line aleng the southerly preperty line. 3. The preposed SPA boundary sheuld be defined by a metes and bounds descriptien se that it is clear what pertions 'Of the tetal parcel have been planned via S.P.A. zening. We weuld suggest deleting the feundatien drain reuting frem the described S. P. A. 4. Fleedplain _ Current fleedplain mapping weuld indicate that the preposal dees net cenflict with the 100 year fleedplain, ner dees it fall within.lOO feet which weuld require review. The site alse dees net appear threatened by any ether geelegical haz ards al though we weul d r~cemmend testing by a geetechnical engineer te verify the design relative te the groundwater cendi tiens .. en the site. .."\ 5. This site is currently under censideratien as a potential site fer a City Streets Department 'Operatiens facility by 'Our fleet management censultant. Preliminary indications are that it is probably not large eneugh and that ether considerations such as the need te reI 'Ocate existing heusing and its preximity to the riverway will prObably preclude serieus consideration fer such a facility. We are therefere reluctant te recemmend that the ACSD propesal be put en hold at this time but wish te bring this censideratien te the attentien 'Of the varieus reviewing bedies. JH/ce/ACSDSPAPlanAmend \ . /"" , . ASPEN.PITKIN .,....,..,.'".."'....".. .,,, I 1"1 f) thtA,~J)tl\t C TO: Steve Burstein Planning Office FROIl: Thomas S. Dunlop, Director (S't:> Environmental Health Dept. DATE: March 27, 1986 RE: Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District - SPA Precise Plan Amendment Parcel IDt 2737-073-00-004/Case Uo. City0:2A-86 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The above mentioned submittal has been reviewed by this office for the following environmental concerns: WATER OUALITY The proposal specifically. addresses the installation of a two vehicle maintenance bay wi th the abili ty 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 stat:ions. Routine main- tenance of these sand interceptors has been committed to by the applicant. The proj ect proposes the installation of, two 2,000 gallon underground .fuel storage tanks in conjunction wi th a fueling island. OVer the past several months regulations have been promulgated by the State of Colorac1o and theU. S. Environmental Protection Agency governing such installations. Specif ically, 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 60220 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 . --------.......t..............______ A _.___ ...._.__.........._ 0..<<=:..... oP:2...,<":i:/o~e:::_on:::t('] ,:-" .~ j 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 QUALITY 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. l1ention 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 s,pecified 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. SEI'1AGE 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 . ,.~:", ,\, MEMORANDUM TO: . FRm1: SUBJECT: DATE: f""', r ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT STEVE BURSTEIN, PLANNING OFFICE JIM MARKALUNAS ASPEN CONSOLIDATED\SANITATION DISTRICT MARCH 11, 1986 J~ ~rt.:{l^ft1+ D D m @ lli r :", ::-".:--~ r: :,' '~):J ;" :1' ' -. IWl I 2 1!<J6.. ~ (~ , I i I I We have reviewed the Aspe 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 .. ".Y' II -_.~- ---..,. ._-~----._- ....-... --- f"'1 ~ J ,4t1'l/~i!l,~1 E MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: STEVE BURSTEIN, l'LANNING OFFICE ANN BOWMAN, PROPERTY MANAGER MARCH 11, 1986. ASPEN CONSOLIDATION DISTRICT DATE : RE: ISSUE: Approval of the employee housing proposed by the appl i- 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 p.n area containing all the necess- ary support facilities complementary to the Hog Pasture Treatment Facili ty. 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 at2 .25 and two at 1.75 .. total of 8 employee units. c,jc' liA,VC ~",ll"O,:".. d" lic,(,,,_ ,':\~.,.r'", (uJ,"'r<,:.-s?",+~' The proposed new employee housing consists of a 546 sf. studio and a one bedroom 10ft 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 - _ .. . _. a . f"\ r'" 1 until sometime in the future. The existing 4 units are deed r~stricted 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 speCifica.lly 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 qual if ied 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. .Oualified 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 "......~.....,.... t"''1 ! (') 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 developnent of employee housing for deed , restricting all of the units at the Aspen COnsolidation District. ",y' ;~ ,; , , 3