Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20081021t I AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, October 21, 2008 12:00 p.m. ZG Site Visit -Meet at Sister Cities Room 4 4:30 p.m. -Public Hearing SISTER CITIES, CITY HALL I. ROLL CALL II. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public III. MINUTES IV. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST V. PUBLIC. HEARINGS: A. 1022 E. Hyman Avenue, Stream Margin Review B. ZG Master Plan VI. OTHER BUSINESS VII. BOARD REPORTS VIII. ADJOURN A P, MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner ~j THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Directo~ DATE OF MEMO: September 23, 2008 MEETING DATE: October 21, 2008 RE: 1022 E. Hyman Avenue -Stream Margin Review APPLICANT /OWNER: John McCormick REPRESENTATIVE: John McCormick LOCATION: Address - 1022 E. Hyman Avenue; Legal Description -Unit 1 &2, Eubank Subdivision; Parcel Identification Number - 2737-181-10-002 CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Residential Multi- Family (RMF) zone district, containing a duplex. PROPOSED LAND USE: The Applicant is requesting permission to construct a deck in the area restricted by Stream Margin Review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny this request to build in an area restricted by Stream Margin Review. SUMMARY: The applicant has requested approval to construct a deck on the second floor of an existing duplex in the Stream Margin Review area. The applicant requests a variance Photo of the Revised 10/16/2008 Page 1 of 9 P2 ~1~~r ~ ; i -~l r/~('MT-.jf"F-~.. i ~._~. % ~.~~1•`r~jJ~ . s, '~-` _ __ G /j~j - f I !~ +~ _ L 1 ~ r%f'ti f~_t G' ~ +w„~ ! ~`'l`_I-~r :~li ` i T`.'"} KiPfs a .`_^~`-~l .' 1 ~ + _~ ` a r `tom-- ~` '----L . ~ ~ t i ~~- ? ~F 1 / . , . ~ • { ~'-~, _ - '~ i~ . f ~ a - -:,,, 1 0~ ~ t 7~ t ~ ~~--?t'1r ~ _ ~~~ ''7' ~ % ~~~" • ~,J!`~`~ ~:__ ,rte ;.__~~.!`~ _ ~ {,'\ • ~_-L _t ~"f2`i•f -~~.! r ._-~r.`7ti7 1 ~`'--rl.!_'..~'=y~".. 1..,,_ _ Legend N Subject Parcel '* Rcads tii' -" E Cit.; Bcundar~ ~~ 0 __ gp X80 ~?u 3ut Feet Figure 1: Vicinity Map BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to construct a deck on the second floor of an existing duplex at 1022 E. Hyman Avenue. The construction of the deck is subject to Stream Margin Review because proposed construction is located within 100 feet of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. When building within a certain distance of the Roaring Fork River or its tributaries heightened review of the proposal is required. Inclusive of the review is the requirement that a structure be a minimum distance from the `top of slope'. Some of the items that are critically analyzed include increases to the base flood elevation, damage to vegetation, potential water pollution, location of structures in relation to the stream margin setback and lighting. ~ Land Use Code Section 26.104.100 Definitions "Top of Slope -Aline generally running parallel to a stream or river from which the development must be setback and which delineates the bank of the river or stream or other riparian areas as determined by the City Engineer." Revised 10/16/2008 Page 2 of 9 P3 The proposed deck encroaches into the 15 feet setback measured from the top of the slope. New development is not permitted in this area. The applicant is permitted to apply for a variance from the review standards under Special Review or an exemption to the Stream Margin Review under certain conditions; however this application does not qualify for Special Review or an exemption. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to construct a deck on the second floor of the existing duplex: • Stream Margin Review as pursuant to Section 26.435.040 of the Land Use Code. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a deck on the second floor of an existing duplex. The Stream Margin Review shall be considered at a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission who may approve, approve with conditions or deny the proposal. STAFF COMMENTS Variances from the Stream Margin Review Standards The applicant is proposing to construct the deck at the second floor level in the area prohibited by Stream Margin Review. A significant portion of the duplex already encroaches on this area, including the existing deck on the third floor. See Figure 2 below: P P i~. i Figure 2: Encroachments into the Stream Margin setback area. Revised 10/16/2008 Page 3 of 9 P4 Figure 2 shows the existing deck on the third floor and the proposed deck on the second floor. The line shown on Figure 2 on a 45 degree plane shows the height requirement as defined by Stream Margin Review in the Land Use Code, Section 26.435.040 (C) (9): "All development outside the fifteen feet setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five degree angle from ground level at the top of the slope." The defined setback area for Stream Margin Review is two-fold. The first part of Section 26.435.040 (C) (9) states that development must be located at least 15 feet back from the `top of slope'. The entire proposed deck is located within the setback area on a horizontal plane. The second part of this section restricts development on a progressive height plane. Development is not permitted in the area that is delineated from the `top of slope' up on a progressive line that is drawn at a 45 degree angle. The proposed deck is also located in the progressive angle plane measured vertically. The applicant is permitted to apply for a variance from the Stream Margin Review Standards. In this case, the proposed project does meet the review criteria to apply for a variance. To qualify for a variance an applicant can request a Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission considers whether the application may be approved or denied based on conformance with two different review criteria. The first criterion for Special Review does not apply because a conflict with the location of the `top of slope' does not exist. The applicant provided a survey of the location of the proposed development, the `top of slope' and the high water marks. The proposed development is clearly noted in the area prohibited by Stream Margin Review. The second criterion refers to the proposal meeting Stream Margin Review Standards that the Director of Community Development has based findings of denial. The applicant and the Director do not have any differing opinions on any of the standards. Non-conforming Structures The existing portions of the duplex that are located in the setback area are considered a legally established non-conforming structure. In Chapter 26.312 of the Land Use Code there are restrictions on increasing or expanding non-conforming structures. Section 26.312.030 (C) (1) Nonconformities states that: "A non-conforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the non-conformity. Anon-conforming structure may be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the non-conformity." The applicant is not able to increase the deck area because the proposed construction is located within the Stream Margin Review setback area and the duplex is currently considered a non- Revised 10/16/2008 Page 4 of 9 P5 conforming structure. Anon-conforming structure may not be altered so that the non-conformity is increased. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Parks Department and the Engineering Department have concerns regarding the potential increase of impervious area on this property and how the construction impacts would be mitigated to ensure that there are no negative impacts on the Roaring Fork River. The applicant did not provide a drainage plan with the application. As a result the City Engineer was unable to analyze the project for negative impacts to the Roaring Fork River. RECOMMENllATION: Community Development Staff recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the Stream Margin Review request to construct a deck on the second floor of the existing duplex. The request does not comply with the setback requirement. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Community Development Staff recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the variance application. If the Planning and Zoning Commission decides to deny the application they can use the following motion: "I move to deny the application for Stream Margin Review located at 1022 E. Hyman Avenue." If the Planning and Zoning Commission decides to improve the application, they may use the following resolution: "I move to approve Resolution No.33, Series of 2008, to approve the Stream Margin Review application for 1022 E. Hyman." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -Staff findings Exhibit B -Application Revised 10/16/2008 Page 5 of 9 P6 RESOLUTION N0. ?J 3 (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1022 E. HYMAN AVENUE, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNITS 1 & 2, EUBANK CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-181-10-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from John McCormick, requesting approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for Stream Margin Review for the construction of a deck on the second floor of an existing duplex located at 1022 E. Hyman Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant's property is located in the Residential Multi-Family Zone District in an Environmentally Sensitive Area as defined by the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicant had a Development Review Committee (DRC} meeting on August 11, 2008 and received comments from referral agencies prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the Stream Margin Review Standards; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal does not meet all applicable development standards; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission grants a variance to the Stream Margin Review standards. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the Stream Margin Review request, with conditions to construct a deck on the second floor of an existing duplex, by a vote of five to zero ~ - ~, and P7 WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1 Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Stream Margin Review with the following conditions: 1. A comprehensive drainage plan is submitted and approved by the City Engineer. The plan must show that 80% of the suspended solids on the site are reduced. The City Engineer was unable to determine if the project has adverse environmental impacts. Information regarding impacts was not submitted. 2. A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. The construction footprint cannot extend into the stream margin review area. Section 2• The Applicant shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final P&Z Resolution. a. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. b. A drainage plan, including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required, a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. c. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan, and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. Also included in the CMP should be the following topic; erosion BMP's, soil stabilization, drainage impacts, and construction phasing plan. P8 The building does not meet the minimum top-of--slope requirement and the forty- five (45) degree progressive height limit as required by Stream Margin Review standards. e. The Zoning Officer shall verify compliance with Floor Area Ratio standards. Section 3: The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering and Parks Departments. The Applicant shall submit a detailed plan for erosion control. Plans should detail location of fencing and type of fencing. This fencing, at a minimum, shall consist of barrier fencing at the top of slope. Beyond this barrier fencing shall be silt fencing installed to the City of Aspen standards. Additional erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. Silt fencing shall be installed along the top of slope. The Applicant shall provide a detailed tree protection fencing plan at the time of building permit submittal and have the City of Aspen Parks Department inspect and approve of the erected silt and tree protection fencing prior to commencing construction. 2. A plan should show how the applicant will provide appropriate protection of the stream margin. Erosion control, drainage and tree protection. Provide a design for the location, means of installation, materials and how it will function. An approved tree permit is required for tree removals. An approved tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying trees for removal, sizes, represented drip lines and a means and schedule for mitigation. Please contact the City Forester for more information 920-5120. The tree permit must be approved prior to an approved excavation permit. 4. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. No excavation within the top of slope set back is allowed. A detailed plan on how the applicant will build the proposed structures and not damage or disturb the 15' set back. 6. Parks is requiring a detailed plan outlining access to and from the construction area. Access plans should detail all vegetation protection measures and construction staging areas. P9 The primary contractor shall submit a letter with the building permit application stating that they have read and understand the conditions of approval contained herein. The Applicant shall provide a drainage plan prepared by a licensed engineer prior to building permit issuance that demonstrates that the property's historic runoff will not be increased as a result of the addition approved herein. 9. All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 5: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 6: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 21st day of October, 2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel ATTEST: LJ Erspamer, Chair Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk P10 Exhibit A DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA) 26.435 STREAM MARGIN REVIEW STANDARDS REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS As pursuant to Section 26.435.040 (C) Stream Margin Review Standards of the City Land Use Code, an applicant that proposes any development within 100 feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River, must apply for review. A development proposal subject to Stream Margin Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on conformance with the following criteria: A. Standards of Review. 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; Staff Finding The proposed deck is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area. The Special Flood Hazard Area is defined by the "Roaring Fork River Cross Sections /Stream Margin Review Line " maps located at City Hall in the Community Development Department. The base flood elevation ~~ill not be affected. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Revised 10/16/2008 Page 6 of 9 Subject property as it relates to the Stream Margin Review Area. P11 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" Staff Finding The property already has a Fisherman's Easement. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; Staff Finding There will be no construction located on the vegetation. The proposed deck will be a cantilever design. There will be an increase in impervious surface area as a result of the deck. The applicant will be required to show how the extra runoff will be contained on site. Staff does not f nd this criterion to be met without a drainage plan. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; r Staff Finding The applicant will be required to provide a construction management plan that demonstrates that the requirements can be met and it must be approved by the Engineering Department. The applicant will also be required to show that the dry well on the property can accommodate the increased flows to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Similar to the previous response, there will be an increase in impervious surface area as a result of the deck. The applicant will be required to show how the extra runoff will be contained on site. The Engineering Department stated that they are unable to determine if the project does not have an adverse environmental impact. A comprehensive drainage plan will need to be submitted which shows an 80% total suspended solids reduction of the site. All of these requirements must be met at the time of building permit submittal. Staff does not find this criterion to be met. 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; Staff Finding The water course will not be altered or relocated. Staff f nds this criterion to be met. Revised 10/16/2008 Page 7 of 9 P12 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; Staff Finding This does not apply. The water course will not be altered or relocated. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100-year flood plain; Slaf Finding No permits have been submitted. Staff does not find this criterion to be met. 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100- year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; Staff Finding No landscaping is proposed in this application. The cantilevered deck will have no impact on the vegetation in the riparian area. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; Staff Finding The proposed deck does not meet this requirement. The deck is located within the setback area, measured from the top of slope. Staff does not find this criterion to be met. 10. A11 exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; Staff Finding There is no lighting proposed with this project. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Staff Finding The applicant has provided a certified survey of the site. Staff has no reason to believe that the architectural drawings or the survey is inaccurate. Staff finds this criterion to be met. Revised 10/16/2008 Page 8 of 9 P13 STREAM MARGIN REVIEW SECTION 26.435.040 (E) SPECIAL REVIEW An applicant can request a variance from the Stream Margin Review Standards. A variance is processed as a Special Review and the Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority to determine whether the application may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado Professionally Licensed Surveyor shows a different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; Staf Finding There are no conflicts in regard to the location of the `top of bank' on this property. The survey provided by the applicant shows the proposed deck to be nonconforming. Staff does not.find this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development meets the Stream Margin Review Standard(s) upon which the Community Director had based the finding of denial; Staf Finding The proposed deck does not meet some of the standards for Stream Margin Review. Development in the Stream Margin Review area must meet all the standards. Each of the Stream Margin Review Standards are discussed above. Staff does not find this criterion to be met. Revised 10/16/2008 Page 9 of 9 ~u~ g~-~ 3 J e f f r e y h a l f e rt y d e s i g n 215 south monarch street Suite 202 Aspen, colorado.81611 970.920.4535 970.925.6035 ,~~ ~, ~~ ~, ~~~ ~~ C~~'~~N jv~ 1~a9 The McCormick Residence Addition-Deck Descriation y~FF pP~/~ 1022 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Co .r~,c~ir For the McCormick residence, there will be a remodel on the existing structure, which includes two completely new decks on the second floor. There will be one built off the kitchen area, and the second new deck will be built off the great room, right below the existing decks on the third floor. These are the only two decks being added. The existing three decks on the third floor include one deck off master bedroom, one from the master bathroom, and a deck off bedroom two. J e f f r e y h a l f e r t y 215 south monarch street Suite 202 Aspen,colorado.81611 970.920.4535 970.925.6035 d e s i g n The McCormick Residence Addition-FAR 1022 E. Hyman Avenue, City of Aspen ~~~° JUC C c~TY 0 0 9 208 CMM~NIryDE F~~pFN PMFPlT Legal: Lot 2 Molny/Eubank Condominium, City of Aspen Condominiums 1 and 2, Eubank Condominiums Zone: Residential/Multi-Family (R/MF) Lot Area: 6276 S.F. (3152 S.F. of the area is beneath the high water line as determined by beach resource MGT. LLC.) Allowed Far Duplex: 2820 S.F. (2700 for 1~` 3000 S.F. + 30 S.F. Per 100 S.F. of Lot thereafter) Existing FAR: 2624.07 S.F. (1027.26 S.F. Main, 901.31 S.F. 2°d FLR, and 695.5 S.F. Basement) New FAR: 173 S.F. (13.6 S.F. GAR. Exceeding 250 S.F. and 159 S.F. 2nd FLR Total FAR: 2797.07 S.F. (Total FAR for complete complex) Exclusions: 250 S.F. Garage, 50 S.F. New deck and 214 S.F. existing deck Deck FAR: Allowable: 2797.07 S.F. x 15% = 419.56 S.F. Upper Floor 30" Above Grade: Existing Deck 1: 110.5 S.F. Existing Deck. 2: 93.36 S.F. Existing Deck 3: 40.5 S.F. Lower Floor 30" Above Grade: Proposed Deck 4: 96.2 S.F. Proposed Deck 5: 78.75 S.F. Total= 419.31 419.56-419.31-=.25 S.F. UNDER Jeffrey Halferty Design Responses ~Np-.~_,~ To Stream Margin Review for Mccormick Residence ~ ~ ~, 1022 E. H man ~-%' ~`~ `~ Aspen, Co 81611 ~~~'1tif(/,y~C'~~~,~ ~~~~ . 26.435.040. Stream mar in review. y0~~ p~~l Sec g ~ rT A. Applicability. The provisions of the stream margin review shall apply to all development within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams and to all development within the Flood Hazard Area, also known as the 100-year flood plain. B. Exemptions. The Community Development Director may exempt the following types of development within the stream margin review area: 1. Construction of pedestrian or automobile bridges, public trails or structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, bank stabilization, provided plans and specifications are submitted to the City engineer demonstrating that the structure is engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows and the Community Development Director determines the proposed structure complies, to the extent practical, with the stream margin review standards. Not Applicable, because there wilt be no construction of pedestrian or automobile bridges, trails or, public trails or structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, or bank stabilization. 2. Construction of improvements essential for public health and safety which cannot be reasonably accommodated outside of the "no development area" prescribed by this Section including, but not limited to, potable water systems, sanitary sewer, utilities and fire suppression systems provided the Community Development Director determines the development complies, to the extent practical, with the stream margin review standards. Not Applicable, because the building will not be in the no development area. 3. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development provided the following standards are met: The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the amount of building area exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty-five percent (25%). All stream margin exemptions are cumulative. Once a development reaches these totals, a stream margin review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is required; and The construction will not be adding any FAR, only to deck area, which will be under the 15% allowable. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit would be required pursuant to Chapter 13.20 of this Code. There will be no trees removed since only decks will be added, and they will be cantilevered. a. The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will be any closer to the high water line than is the existing development; Will comply, since existing structure is already non-conforming, and will not be increasing its footprint. Only two decks will be added, and they will be cantilevered to expand only the same distance as the existing decks above. b. The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one has been designated through a prior review; and Will comply, since the building does not fall outside of an approved building envelope. c. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the amount of ground coverage of structures within the 100-year flood plan. Will comply, since there will be no increase to the amount of ground coverage or FAR. C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and Will comply, since there will be no increase of base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and Access will be granted to fishermen in the waterway, but not on property. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and Will comply since the two new decks will be cantilevered, and it will not impact or touch the riparian zone. The existing decks one floor above already expand over the same area. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and Not Applicable, because no hot tub or pool is being added to the property. 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and Not applicable, because we are not changing the water course. 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and Not applicable, because we are not changing the water course. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100-year flood plain; and Survey is provided with information of where top of bank is located, approximate high water line, and edge of creek. S. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and The decks will be cantilevered, and existing riparian vegetation will not be disturbed. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and Existing house location is non-conforming, and construction not be increasing its existing footprint. Two new decks will be added below existing decks, expanding only the existing area, and will be cantilevered. 10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; and Will comply, since no exterior lighting will directed towards the river or located down he slope. 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones Survey is provided with information of where top of bank is located, approximate high water line, and edge of creek. There will be no development past the top of bank, and will not be disturbing the wetlands or riparian zones or adding anything new. D. Appeal of Director's determination. An appeal of a determination in regards to a stream margin application or in regards to the top of slope determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be reviewed as a special review pursuant to Section E, below. In this case, the Community Development Director's finding shall be forwarded as a recommendation and a new application need not be filed. E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A special review from the stream margui review determination may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; and Will comply, survey is provided with information of where top of bank is located, approximate high water line, and edge of creek. 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. F. Building permit submittal requirements. Prior to receiving a building permit for a property within the stream margin review area, the following must be submitted: 1. The applicant shall record a site improvement plat with topography prepared by a Colorado licensed professional surveyor showing the building envelope determined by the Community Development Director based on the Stream Margin Review Map located in the Community Development Department. Will comply, a site plan and survey is provided with information of where top of bank is located, approximate high water line, and edge of creek. 2. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope and pertinent elevations above sea level. Will comply, survey is provided with information of where top of bank is located, approximate high water line, and edge of creek. More information is also on elevations and floor plans. 3. The building envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of certificates of occupancy. (Ord. No. 45-2001, § 3; Ord. No. 52-2003, § 13) We «~ill comply with this issue. Editor's note-Ord. No. 45-2001, § 2, repealed former § 26.435.040, pertaining to Stream Margin Review and Ord. No. 45-2001, § 3, enacted a new § 26.435.040 as herein setout. Former § 26.435.040 was derived from Ord. No. 47-1999, § 3; Ord. No. 52-2003, ~ 13. City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments 1022 E Hyman 1. The plywood floor and solid plastic fence to be erected will prevent any pollution or sedimentation from going into the river. Please see engineer's comments regarding drainage. 2. Construction Management Ptan- please see separately S K PEIGHTAL ENGINEERS Ltd STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS MEMORANDUM To: John McCormick john@aspenluxury.com c / o Jamie Beers Jeffrey Halferty Design 215 South Monarch St - #202 Aspen, CO 81611 jmemalia@gmail.com From: Stephen Peightal, PE Date: October 20, 2008 Re: McCormick Residence 1022 East Hyman Aspen, Colorado This Memo is in followup to our prior discussions regarding the ability to construct deck structures on the east side of the above referenced project. It is my understanding that main level decks are planned to be placed on this river side of the existing building. With the use of cantilever steel primary members, and concrete piers placed tight to the existing foundation line, we can easily avoid any need for disruption of grade away from the building perimeter. We can approach this structure as a clean framing system with no construction impact to the river bank. Please call with any questions. 08034 M SKPE • 76 Sunset Drive • Unit #4 • Basalt, CO • 81621 • (970) 927-9510 • FaX: (970) 927-0597 Construction Management Plan 1022 EHyman- decks adjacent to Roaring Fork 1. Planed Sequence of Construction a. Plywood put down allowing protection of top of bank with adequate openings for drip lines. b. Solid fence put at top of bank to prevent anything form going in the river c. Orange mesh fence put in place around construction area. d. Scaffolding erected -will only be on plywood area. e. Deck will be constructed using scaffolding- there will be no activity outside plywood or fenced area. i. Steel supports will be attached to side of the house. ii. Decking will be attached to steel f. Parking will be off street. g. Staging will be within fenced area h. Truck traffic will be minimal, and will park off street i. Noise will be minimal j. Dust will be minimal k. Solid fence will keep erosion and sedimentation out of the river. Parks Department Comments 1. In addition to a orange mesh "construction fence" applicant will erect a solid plastic fence to assure that no materials will go in the river. All construction will stay within this fenced area. The area within the fence will be protected by plywood sheets. The fences will be attached by cord around the trees so as to not harm them. 2. No trees will be removed. 3. Any plywood that is at the base of the trees will be cut out to provide for adequate moisture at drip lines. There will be no materials or work done within that area.The orange mesh fence will run outside the drip line 4. There will be no excavation. J October 20, 2008 Mr. John McCormick 1120 E. Hyman Ave. Aspen, Colorado 81611 P1IVNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 0805 Buck~~oiret Road C~'ar•hondale, LO 81623 (970) 963-2170 Office (970) 701-O?I S Fax RE: RIVER HOUSE CONDOMINIUMS DECK CONSTRUCTION Dear John; This letter is in regards to our conversation concerning your desire to add a new deck to the River House Condominiums, 1022 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Colorado. I have found, based on City of Aspen Engineering Department regulations, that storm water mitigation on the subject project will not be necessary since you will be adding less than 200 square feet of hardened surfaces to the project. Due to the proposed deck location being directly above an existing patio, which is already considered anon-permeable surface for the purpose of calculating storm water runoff quantities, the proposed deck will only add approximately eighty-three (83) square feet ofnon-permeable surface to the existing site. The net, (non-permeable) surface area added to the site, at a minimum, can be obtained by the following: 1. Proposed Deck Size = 269 sf 2. Existing Patio Size = 189 sf 3. "Net added non-permeable surface" _ (Deck Size) - (Patio Size) = 269 sf - 186 sf = 83 sf Since the additional hardened surface area will be less than 200 square feet, the City of Aspen Engineering Department will not require a storm water mitigation plan. Concern for surface water runoff impacts on the adjacent Roaring Fork River can be mitigated in part by your proposal to include a plastic barrier and plywood on the grass under the proposed construction. In addition, erosion control logs, if added along the top of bank to would further eliminate sediment transfer concerns on the adjacent receiving water. P1NNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP. L'VC. Mr. John McCormick October 20, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Please feel free to give me a call if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~-~--~ Hans E. Brucker, PE PINNACLE DESIGN CONSULTING GROUP, INC. heb:HEB w. J e f f r e y h a l f e r t y 215 south monarch street Suite 202 Aspen, colorado.81611 970.920.4535 970.925.6035 d e s i g n The McCormick Residence FAR 1022 E. Hyman Avenue, City of Aspen Legal_ Lot 2 Molny/Eubank Condominium, City of Aspen Condominiums 1 and 2, Eubank Condominiums Zone: ResidentiaUMulti-Family (lt/MF) Lot Area: 6276 S.F. (3152 S.F. of the area is beneath the high water line as determined by beach resource MGT. LLC.) Allowed Faz Duplex: 2820 S.F. (2700 for 1~` 3000 S.F. + 30 S.F. Per 100 S.F. of Lot thereafter) Existing FAR: 2624.07 S.F. (1027.26 S.F. Main, 901.31 S.F. 2na FLR, and 695.5 S.F. Basement) New FAR: 173 S.F. (13.6 S.F. GAR. Exceeding 250 S.F. and 159 S.F. 2na FLR Total FAR: 2797.07 S.F. (Total FAR for complete complex) Exclusions: 250 S.F. Garage, 50 S.F. New deck and 214 S.F. existing deck Deck FAR: Allowable: 2820 S.F. x 15% = 423 S.F. Upper Floor 30" Above Grade: Existing Deck 1: 110.5 S.F. Existing Deck 2: 93.36 S.F. Existing Deck 3: 40.5 S.F. Total Existing: 244.36 S.F. Lower Floor 30" Above Grade: Proposed Deck 4: 96.2 S.F. Proposed Deck 5: 81.03 S.F. Total Proposed= 177.23 S. F. 423 (Allowed) - 421.59 (Exiting and Proposed) =1.41 UNDER McCormick Residence Photos C O IVa .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Sm ~ ~ ~ ~ Y ~ ap =~ ~OqG ..~ ................. ............... O W ~ i ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 3 A R b p~ ! : ~ ~t ~ ~ e ~ ~ .v-,aa J QW O N W ~ ~ a U ~~ ~~ ~ a J ~ pW O F ~ D ~ O x U U ~ Z ~ G U N 3 W ~ ~a N Nn °° E~~S p ,, a... •- s~o~ W s i ~' .e 'd~a .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. ,`~ = vin hMnr "o .. • NOfA01 ~~ ~~3~ _.. ~,~ .~ ~~ M ~~C ~~ a @4 R~ ~~ V ~` w ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~ W '~ ~ o ^~~ ~ Qom. P, -~ MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner ~ ~- THRU: Chris Bendon, Director, Community Development MEETING DATE: October 21, 2008 DATE OF MEMO October 16, 2008 ~; ZG Master Plan -Resolution No. 32, Series 2008 Public Hearin LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The City is requesting the following from the Planning and Zoning Commission: • Determination if application for ZG Master Plan meets the recommendations of the Civic Master Plan. • Recommend~proval of ZG Master Plan to City Council. The Master Plan process itself, pursuant to Section 26.104.030, does not include criteria by which to evaluate a master plan proposal. In the case of the ZG Master Plan, it is required to be consistent with the findings and recommendations of the Civic Master Plan, according to Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2006. The Planning and Zoning Commission was informed of this requirement during a July 18 meeting, and was provided with copies of the Civic Master Plan to consult as the ZG Master Plan was presented. In addition, the ZG Master Plan itself includes dozens of references to the findings and recommendations of the Civic Master Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission may find that the ZG Master Plan is consistent with the Civic Master Plan without explicitly addressing each of 51 findings and 44 recommendations of the Civic Master Plan. PROJECT SUMMARY: At its meetings on September 2 and October 14, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the entirety of ZG Master Plan, including: / Part I: Physical Design / Part II: Mixed Uses =Memorable Places P2 / Part III: Open Space Analysis / Part IV: Phasing and Mitigation / p~ V: Square Footage Tables / Part VI: Consultants and Costs / Part VII: Components of the Plan Staff and representatives of the ZG Partnership made presentations and public comment was taken both on September 2 and October 14. However, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a board discussion only on September 2. On October 14, staff presentation and public comment took three hours, and the commission adjourned at 7:30 pm. before holding a board discussion. On October 21, staff plans to limit its remarks to a brief overview of the traffic implications of switching the use of the Zupancis parcel to a mix of commercial and affordable housing, with Pitkin County operations largely relocated to the AABC area. Staff is providing back-up information from the traffic study as requested, attached to this memo as Exhibit A. Although a public hearing is continued from one date to another, the process and order of the public hearing is continuous. Staff is suggesting that public comment has been extensive on September 2 and October 14, and that public comment be limited to the topic of traffic implication re: the use of the Zupancis parcel on October 21. This will help allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to have its discussion, which it could not find time to do on October 14. SITE VISIT ON OCTOBER 21: This is a reminder that we have a site visit scheduled from noon - 1 pm on Tuesday the 21st, starting at Sister Cities. STAFF COMMENT: The P&Z may make changes to the ZG Master Plan prior to making a recommendation to City Council. Staff has prepared a resolution that can be approved even if P&Z makes changes to the ZG Master Plan on October 21. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the ZG Master Plan, as currently proposed, to the City Council. Exhibit A: Traffic study and tables P3 RESOLUTION NO. 32 (Series of 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF ASPEN, COLORADO, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE ZUPANCIS- GALENA MASTER PLAN ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON RIO GRANDE PLACE, N. MILL STREET AND EAST MAIN STREET, OWNED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN AND PITKIN COUNTY, ALL WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council, pursuant to Resolution 38-B, Series of 2008, initiated the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan review process, pursuant to Section 26.104.030; as an extension of the Civic Master Plan, and to develop the findings and recommendations of the Civic Master Plan into greater detail; and, WHEREAS, the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan focuses on a redevelopment of lands, owned by the City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Pitkin County Library, for the purpose of providing a range of public uses including a new signature Art Museum; additional City and County offices; new open space areas; new pedestrian routes; sub- grade parking; additional library space; improved City and County public safety services; a relocated Visitor Center and offices for the Aspen Chamber Resort Association; affordable housing, commercial uses and improvements to public infrastructure such as the substantial widening of the stairway from Galena Plaza to Rio Grande Place; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen manages public rights-of--way in the planning area including Rio Grande Place, North Mill Street and Main Street, and owns certain public land known locally as the Zupancis Property, Rio Grande Building, Rio Grande Parking Garage, Galena Plaza, and Rio Grande Park Parking Lots; and, WHEREAS, Pitkin County owns certain public lands known locally as the County Plaza Building, Veteran's Park and the Pitkin County Jail; and, WHEREAS, the Pitkin County Library District owns certain public lands known locally as the Pitkin County Library; and, WHEREAS, the legal descriptions of the lands subject to this master plan process are attached as Exhibit A and are generally described as lands between East Main Street and Rio Grande Place, and between Noah Mill Street and Obermeyer Place/Concept 600; and, WHEREAS, the Master Plan was designed by the Zupancis-Galena Partnership, which is made up of the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, the Aspen Art Museum, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, the Pitkin County Library and consulting expertise, in conjunction with feedback from the public including informal public meetings held on March 22-23, 2007; August 15, 2007; November 15, 2007; and March 12, 2008; and, P4 WHEREAS, changing the disposition of certain city-owned lands within the project area may ultimately require a public vote; and, WHEREAS, the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan outlines the location and an approximation of the footprint, height, mass and scale of buildings, as well as generalized architectural and landscape character, reflecting the conceptual nature of the Master Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan document outlines the general uses of new buildings and structures, including a phasing and mitigation plan; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Community Development Director has reviewed the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan; has considered the content of the four public meetings on March 22-23, 2007, August 15, 2007, November 15, 2007, and March 12, 2008; and has found that the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan showed consistency with the Civic Master Plan pursuant to Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend that City Council adopt by resolution plans or documents to be used in a guiding capacity; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the Zupancis- Galena Master Plan, which in its text references findings and recommendations of the Civic Master Plan, and finds that the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan has shown consistency with the Civic Master Plan, pursuant to Ordinance No. 46, Series of 2006; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held legally noticed public hearings on the subject of the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan on September 2, 2008; and on October 14, 2008; and on October 21, 2008; and, WHEREAS, during a publicly noticed meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 21, 2007, the Planning acid Zoning Commission recommended, by a vote of ,that City Council adopt the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan with conditions as represented during the October 21, 2008, public hearing; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: The Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends that City Council adopt the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan. Section 1 • Consistency with the Civic Master Plan The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission recommends that the Aspen City Council adopt the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan, finding that the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan is consistent with the findings and recommendations of the Civic Master Plan. P5 Section 2: Components of the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that that Zupancis-Galena Master Plan includes the following components to its satisfaction, as noted in City Council Resolution No. 38-B, Series of 2008, which initiated the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan: a) A description and depiction of allowable development on each property, including allowable height, area, bulk, density, uses, operating characteristics, and unit ownership structure. b) A description of conceptual architecture and character. The ZG Master Plan should describe the specificity upon which conceptual architecture may be amended and the process of amendment. c) A description and depiction of the rights-of--way to be vacated, upgraded, or otherwise affected including encroachments therein. d) A description of the amount and method(s) of affordable housing and other development impact mitigation requirements that must be provided. e) A description and allocation of responsibility for the development and maintenance of neighborhood and shared infrastructure and community benefits (e.g., sub-grade parking, replacement of Rio Grande Parking Garage roof, new stairway from Galena Plaza to Rio Grande Place, relocation of Galena Plaza/Garage elevator, rehabilitation and maintenance of historic McMurtchy- Zupancis Cabins). f) A description of the timing, phasing, and management of construction activity. Section 3: Historic Preservation Commission Review This Resolution does not exempt the subject properties from the procedures and requirements of Section 26.415, Development Involving Historic Resources. Both Conceptual and Final Review approval shall be necessary for properties designated Historic Landmarks regardless of the direction or disposition of the ZG Master Plan. Section 4: Future Land Use Reviews The adoption of the Zupancis-Galena Master Plan by the Aspen City Council would allow the parties identified in the "Zupancis-Galena Master Plan, Part III: Phasing and Mitigation" to apply for a Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD Review, pursuant to Section 26.445.030(B)2, and Growth Management Quota System review, pursuant to Section 26.470.090(4), and other land use reviews as required. This Resolution does not exempt the parties so identified from any land use review required under Title 26. Pursuant to Section 26.104.030, the ZG Master Plan includes a description of how it shall be used in relationship to the AACP, land use development and planning, and there shall be a determination of whether the document shall be used as a guiding or regulatory document. r P6 The 2000 AACP was a guiding document used in the drafting of the Civic Master Plan. The 2006 Civic Master Plan is a regulatory document that was used in the review of the ZG Master Plan. The ZG Master Plan is to be used as a guiding document by entities such as the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council as they review future land use applications for development within the ZG site. Attest: Jackie Lothian, Assistant City Clerk L.J. Erspamer, Chair FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission this 21st day of October, 2008. Approved as to form: City Attorney Exhibit A -Legal descriptions of land subject to Master Planning Review. Exhibit B - Zupancis-Galena Master Plan, as recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 21, 2008. --~~ t 0 oa ~a ma m a aaw~ ¢a ¢~a J N a ~p ~ ~f) ~ M M N ~ r h N r O O O N O N O N Q N r ~ O ~ O N aD O a0 ~ N O W h ~ 01 h N Q m Q m Q m Q m Q Q Q () m Q Q Q m Q R L ~ ¢ t6 h M M N N O O N ~ N 01 r oD ~ t0 ~ ~ .- ~ O ~ O M h W CO ~~ O m f0 ~ W o wa ~a m¢ m a ¢aLL~ ac ¢~a h J ~ d ~, R r~ ~ M M N ~ r h N '- O h c0 N O r N Q N r ~ O ~ O N p O~~ N O 07 h ~ 0) 7 N 0 m Q m Q m Q m Q Q Q U m Q Q Q m Q W L J ~ Q cTD O r ^ M M N N O O N O O O r a0 ~` c0 ~ ~ r ~ o ~ o ~' r co co °~ ~ o of ca ° co O U Q U Q m Q m Q ¢ Q~ U Q Q Q m Q ~ a J ~ ~+ N r tt ~ M M N ~ r 1~ N r~ h o0 N o r N Q N r ~ O ~ O N [O CO 00 ~ N O W h ~ W M o ma ma ma m a aa~m ¢¢ ¢m¢ R L a ¢ T p N O n M M N N O 0 O N O r o0 n h Q ~ r ~ O ~ O M h a0 00 ~~ O O CD ~ 00 o ~¢ ~¢ ma m a aaw~ as ¢ma ~ d J r ~ N tD M N M N N ? r h N W r h h r r 0 0 N d N ~-- ~ O r O N c0 M oD ~ N O W h r Q~ N h p m a m¢ m a m ¢ Q Q U m Q¢ Q m C t0 L cL J d Q l6 ~ r ~ M M N N W O N ~~ O r 1~ (D r O ~ r ~ O ~ O M h aC W~~ r~ CD ~ 00 o ~¢ ~¢ ma m ¢ a¢wc~ as ama O a N ~ N r M `- N M r tD N h~ CD In r N 0 N N N r ~ O ~ O N ~ O W N O Oa h i m N Q m Q m Q m Q m Q Q Q (.~ m Q Q Q m Q N L ~ J d Q N 0 0 O M N N N W T N r 0 O r CD ~ h N ~ ~ O ~ O ~ h h a0 O~ M .- O O~ O o c~a c~a ma m ¢ ¢awc~ ¢a ama J O a N ~? M ~ M ~ N M cD N a m (D ~ N M O N ~ ry r ~ O r 0 N N 00 ~0 a N O Q7 h ~ O) C N fn Q m Q m a m Q m Q Q Q U m Q Q Q m Q w ~ ¢ ~' f0 O O ~ M ~ N r CO O N r 0 O r (D M h ~r ~o ~O `'' ~ r~co°'°~ rci c~°co mm ~ >m N mmm ~ ~ ~ JJF-F- mm ~ Z >m-~2 > > > > w ~ Z ~ m > Z Z ~ ~ ~ O J R r ~ C m y 9 C N N ~ ~ ` m R C7 ~ ~ ~ ~ y~ y ~ O Z a8 Z Z ~, N R m ~ C7 08 ~ aE ~ ~ od - = m H `m _ ~ m f9 c N a m n. m 'O ~ ~ Z Z 2 c c A ~ v Q ~ vE o6 ad ~a ` (~ ~ U aNO m eNo C7 C9 o d o 0 ~ ~ fn Vl N N d' Q' a~ V .` r- 0 _N d C1 J .~ .~ a` C/ti ,~ v 'J f 7 Q~ -~> d P7 ~ ~j l~ta sf-~-~ ~1~~-, /o-a i- ~ 08-231-01: Aspen ZG Parcel Traffic Study New Trips (Preliminary Draft) =- ~---- Land Use Daily AM In Peak Hour Out ~ Total PM In Peak Hour Out Total Residential/Commercial 311 5 5 10 14 14 28 Cit Offices 438 22 3 25 12 27 39 Libra Ex ansion 270 4 1 5 17 18 35 Art Museum 60 0 0 0 1 5 6 Count Offices 1,600 83 10 93 45 100 145 Subtotal 2,679 114 19 133 89 164 253 Existin Tri s Removed from Block 607 25 4 29 24 34 58 Existing Employee Trips Already Using Rio Grand Garage 286 36 5 42 7 33 39 Net New 1,786 53 10 62 58 97 156 Alternative 1 (Affordable Housing) 111! Vrillcl4uvn AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Dail y In Out ; Total In Out Total Residential/Commercial 311 5 5 10 14 14 28 Cit Offices 438 22 3 25 12 27 39 Libra Ex ansion 270 4 1 5 17 18 35 Art Museum 60 0 0 0 1 5 6 50 Units Affordable Housin 42 - 19 11 - 9 9 - 13 - 4 Subtotal 1,121 12 20 31 53 51 104 Existing Tri s Removed from Block 607 25 4 29 24 34 58 Existing Employee Trips Already Using Rio Grand Garage 286 36 5 42 7 33 39 Net New 228 - 49 11 - 40 22 - 16 7 Alternative 2 (Office/Affordable Housing) I SIN <7CIIC14 ~IVII AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Dail y In Out Total In Out Total Residential/Commercial 311 5 5 .10 14 14 28 Cit Offices 438 22 3 25 12 27 39 Libra Ex ansion 270 4 1 5 17 18 35 Art Museum 60 0 0 0 1 5 6 35 Units Affordable Housin , 15,000 SF Office 50 - 11 8 - 4 7 - 7 0 Subtotal 1,129 20 17 36 51 57 108 Existin Tri s Removed from Block 607 25 4 29 24 34 58 Existing Employee Trips Already Using Rio Grand Garage 286 36 5 42 7 33 39 Net New 236 - 41 8 - 35 20 - 10 11