Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.202202011 AGENDA ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION February 1, 2022 4:30 PM, WebEx Virtual Meeting (See agenda packet for instructions to join the meeting) I.VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS TO JOIN ONLINE: Go to www.webex.com and click on "Join a Meeting" Enter Meeting Number: 2559 206 2158 Enter Password: 81611 Click "Join Meeting" -- OR -- JOIN BY PHONE Call: 1-408-418-9388 Enter Meeting Number: 2559 206 2158 Enter Password: 81611 II.ROLL CALL III.COMMENTS IV.MINUTES IV.A.Draft Meeting Minutes for January 4, 2022 minutes.apz.20220104.docx V.DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI.PUBLIC HEARINGS VI.A.Rio Grande Park Signage Plan, Amendment to Detailed Review Approval Memo Rio Grande Park_Minor Amend to Detailed Review Approval.docx P&Z Resolution No. 004 Series 2022_Rio Grande Park Signage Plan.docx Exhibit A Amendment to Detailed Review Approval.docx Exhibit B Application Rio Grande Signage Plan.pdf VI.B.108 Neale Avenue | Herron Park | Stream Margin Review & Special Review to Establish an Alternative Top of Slope Resolution #05, Series of 2022 1 2 Memo_Herron Park_Stream Margin Review.pdf Resolution No. 05_Series 2022_Stream Margin Review.pdf Exhibit A.1_Stream Margin Review Standards.pdf Exhibit A.2_Special Review Standards_Top of Slope.pdf Exhibit B_Notice of Approval_Herron Park.pdf Exhibit C_Application.pdf VII.OTHER BUSINESS VIII.BOARD REPORTS IX.ADJOURN TYPICAL PROCEEDING FORMAT FOR ALL PUBLIC HEARINGS 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affidavit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clarifications of applicant 7) Public comments 8) Board questions and clarifications relating to public comments 9) Close public comment portion of bearing 10) Staff rebuttal/clarification of evidence presented by applicant and public comment 11) Applicant rebuttal/clarification End of fact finding. Deliberation by the commission commences. No further interaction between commission and staff, applicant or public 12) Chairperson identified the issues to be discussed among commissioners. 13) Discussion between commissioners* 14) Motion* *Make sure the discussion and motion includes what criteria are met or not met Revised January 9, 2021 2 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2022 Page 1 of 8 Chairperson McKnight called the regularPlanning and Zoning (P&Z) meeting for January 4th, 2022 to order at 4:30 PM. Commissioners in attendance: Ruth Carver, Sam Rose, Brittanie Rockhill, Teraissa McGovern, and Spencer McKnight. Commissioners not in attendance: Scott Marcoux Staff in Attendance: Amy Simon, Planning Director Jeff Barnhill, Planner Kate Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Cindy Klob, Records Manager COMMISSIONER COMMENTS None STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Simon will be mailing cards to the members PUBLIC COMMENTS None APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Rockhill motioned to approve the minutes for December 7, 2021 and the motion was seconded by Mr. Rose. Mr. McKnight asked for a roll call: Ms. Carver, yes; Mr. Rose, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; Ms. McGovern, yes; and Mr. McKnight, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST None PUBLIC HEARINGS 420 E Hyman Ave – Variance for Reduction of Second Tier Commercial Space Mr. McKnight asked if proper notice had been provided. Ms. Johnson responded the notice was provided was in compliance. He then opened the hearing and turned the floor over to staff. Mr. Jeff Barnhill, Planner, introduced himself and then reviewed the application. The 3,009 SF site is located in the Commercial Core (CC) zone district. The site is currently under construction to develop a 3-story mixed-use building. He stated the application requests a variance to reduce the Second-Tier Commercial space and combine the two units to create one space for a new tenant. Mr. Barnhill stated the site is under construction from a 2014 Development Order and wasn’t subject to the second-tier commercial space regulations. The proposed changes to the project make it subject to these regulations. 3 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2022 Page 2 of 8 He noted the second-tier regulations came about during the 2016 moratorium when Council was concerned businesses serving the full-time residents were at risk of being displaced. New requirements were implemented to require net leasable spaces in basements and on upper floors. He stated the code states no redevelopment of a building can result in less than 50% of the total planned second tier net leasable space and the applicant is proposing 180 SF of second tier net leasable space which is a reduction from the required amount of at least 85%. He displayed the proposed location of the second tier space. Mr. Barnhill stated there are 2 methods for reducing the required second tier net leasable space. One method allows the applicant to meet the requirement on another property. This method is not feasible for the applicant. The second method involves identifying a hardship reviewed and approved as a variance by P&Z. He then reviewed the standards applicable to variances. Mr. Barnhill next discussed the variance review criteria and staff’s findings. His review of the findings includes the following. Staff does not find a need for more net leasable space a hardship. Reasonable use of the site does not include a reduction of second tier commercial space. No special circumstances or conditions exist on the site when compared to other properties in the same zone district. Although the current building configuration may not provide enough net leasable space for the proposed tenant, it may be enough for another tenant. The application represents an applicant-specific inconvenience rather than a site-specific hardship. Staff is concerned a bad precedent will be set if this application is granted a variance. Mr. Barnhill concluded stating staff finds the review criteria for a variance to not be met. He displayed a layout of the building’s floor designs as per the permit on file. Mr. McKnight asked if the commissioners had questions for staff. Mr. Rose asked for a definition of second tier space. Mr. Barnhill responded it is a space that may be considered less desirable than other spaces in a commercial building. Adding it may not have street frontage and other characteristics. Mr. McKnight then turned the floor over to the applicant. Ms. Sara Adams, BendonAdams, introduced herself and the property owner, Marc Ezralow. Ms. Adams reviewed the project, noting it was designed under the 2012 Municipal Code by the previous owner and received approval in 2014. The current design of the building has commercial and three affordable housing units on the second floor and a free market unit on the third floor. Ms. Adams then reviewed the design of each floor and basement as currently permitted and under construction. She pointed out the area on the second floor to be retained as commercial and the circulation areas. She believes the design does not fit well with the current municipal code stating the building was not designed for second tier commercial, the new commercial design standards, the prohibition of free market residential, or the ability to do three stories. Ms. Adams noted Mr. Ezralow purchased the property in 2017 and plans to live on the third floor. He has always wanted to have one lease for the commercial space. She noted a luxury entity offered to take a lease on the commercial space, but Mr. Ezralow really wanted a more community oriented entity. He 4 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2022 Page 3 of 8 began discussions with Banana Republic who stated they would need both the basement and ground level to make their business model work in Aspen. Mr. Ezralow submitted a changed order which was stopped by the City because it triggered a compliance issue with the second tier regulation the City was retroactively applying to the 2014 approval because the vested rights for the project had expired. She added the three year vesting rights are mandated by the state. Mr. Ezralow feels strongly about locally serving retail and decided to ask the P&Z Commission for relief from the second tier regulations. He doesn’t want a luxury retailer, but that’s plan B if combining the spaces doesn’t work out. She stated the request is to combine the ground and basement levels and indicated on a floor layouts where stair and lift/elevator would be placed. Ms. Adams read the definition of second tier per the Municipal Code. She added she does not believe the code actually supports the existence of these spaces defined by location and inherent lower rents. She stated the code regulates the location and size of second tier spaces, but not the use so it could be luxury retail, or any use allowed as defined per the code. It does not dictate whether the business actually serves the local community. Ms. Adams displayed a chart showing the approved and proposed values of the net leasable areas, noting they are draft numbers. She stated they are proposing a voluntary deed restriction on the commercial space if it is combined for general retail and would prohibit any luxury retailer from going into the space. This would allow for about 3,736 sf minus the connection of deed restricted general retail space serving the community. Ms. Adams noted both the general and specialty retail are defined in the code and both are allowed on all levels in the Commercial Core Zone District. She stated the goal of second tier commercial is to be locally serving and feels the deed restriction would meet this goal. She also noted goals from the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan she believes are applicable to this application. Ms. Adams stated the code allows property owners to request a reduction in second tier space. She doesn’t feel it sets a bad precedent because each request must be heard and decided by the P&Z Commission. She noted the code provides two options for reducing the amount of second tier space. One is the off-site option and the other is to provide the second tier within the same block or zone district. She stated these options are not feasible due to the lack of inventory of available buildings to purchase to meet the second tier requirement. To her understanding the off-site option has never been used and is not feasible to the applicant. Ms. Adams stated with no feasible options, the applicant is requesting a variance. This code section lists criteria for site specific hardships to be met. She feels the proposal for a deed restriction is consistent with the purpose and intent of second tier spaces. She then pointed out two sections of the Aspen Area Community Plan which discuss the need for a balanced, diverse, and vital commercial mix to meet the year round needs and the need to facilitate sustainability of essential businesses to provide basic community needs. Ms. Adams then stated the proposal meets the minimum variance to make reasonable use of the building by using a combined space to provide a locally serving commercial business. She noted the potential tenant, Banana Republic, provided a letter stating they would need the combined space to provide adequate inventory space for a range of price points. She addressed the remaining criteria stating the situation is not self-created, but the result of significant changes to the code over the past 10 years. She added the 2014 approved building is non-conforming. It is over the floor area, over the height limit, and has free market residential which limits the ability to shift spaces around. She reiterated there is not off-site option. 5 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2022 Page 4 of 8 Mr. Ezralow asked to emphasize a couple of things. He has been visiting Aspen for 30 years and plans to make it his home as soon as the building is completed. He knows of basement spaces in commercial buildings that are empty and not even finished out. He has talked with a number of real estate brokers, and they have no idea of a tenant who could be in a basement. He stated he has searched, and nobody is interested in being in a basement with no exposure. He added the basement was not built to accommodate a restaurant so that’s not a possibility at this time. He thinks it makes sense to have locally serving retail in this location. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners for questions of the applicant. Ms. McGovern asked to see the definition of specialty retail. Ms. Adams displayed the definition on the screen. Ms. Rockhill asked for any examples of businesses moving into second tier retail since 2014. Ms. Adams stated the new Timberline Building on Main St which has Timberline mortgage in the basement space. Ms. Simon replied there are lots of second tier examples which existed before the city defined the concept. Ms. Simon stated there have not been many new buildings proposed since the 2016 code change with included second tier spaces. She added there is one approved for 304 E Hopkins next to the White House Restaurant which will have a restaurant on the street level and a separately functional space in the basement. Ms. Adams noted the owners of the Hopkins building have not been able to find someone to rent the basement space at this time. Ms. Carver asked how many second tier spaces with no windows are occupied by offices or retail. She can think of a couple. Ms. Simon suggested it is not the commission’s role at this hearing to question the success of the second tier space concept and it is their role to evaluate whether this applicant has a hardship in terms of being held to the standards. Mr. Rose asked if it would not be a hardship if you can’t fill that second tier space with a retailer. Ms. Simon responded that’s a really hard thing for the commission to evaluate without knowing the details on why a retailer has not been found. She reiterated their role in making a decision regarding the existence of a hardship. Mr. McKnight asked staff to display the review criteria. Mr. Rose asked what is the proposed use of the 180 SF on the second floor. Ms. Adams responded it could be an office space. Mr. McKnight then opened for public comments. Mr. Andrew Sandler feels the spirit of the code does not always match the results. He stated he has just leased the Golden Horn building where the Maru Restaurant and bike shop were located. He believes the restaurant failed due to the rents and the status of the building needing work which was not affordable by the tenant and the landlord. He stated he had to jump through a lot of hoops to rent both the first floor and the basement including two liquor licenses and change the name of the space just to adhere to the code. He noted other businesses are doing something similar in town to be able to have their businesses exist on two floors of the same building. He supports the applicant’s request for a variance. Ms. Linda Manning stated the intent of the code in regards to second tier commercial is for a business that serves the needs of the full time population. Second tier space is meant to be less desirable space 6 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2022 Page 5 of 8 that would generate lower rent. She feels every space in Aspen is desirable. The code does not require the secondary space to be locally serving. She feels the application addresses all the criteria and is supportive of granting the variance. Mr. Bryan Semel, a commercial broker for the applicant, knows most landlords look for gyms and yoga studios for a lower level space. He believes gyms would take a second floor space, but not a basement space. He noted basement spaces can be expensive to retrofit and finish. For the applicant’s space, he has had offers for the entire building or just the street level space. He doesn’t feel second tier space works. Mr. Brian West, a member of the design team, stated his comments have been reflected by the others. Mr. Matthew Irwin, Deputy General Counsel for Banana Republic, stated his client is excited about the prospect of returning to the Aspen market and about the prospect of becoming a locally serving tenant. He noted a typical footprint for a store is 7,000 SF and they have figured out a vision for the space in the Aspen store. He noted the amount of space cannot be minimized further and if the application is denied, it is improbable the brand will have an opportunity to return to the Aspen market. Mr. Steve Peters, Head of Stores for Banana Republic, reiterated they are super excited about the prospect of re-entering the Aspen market to serve the local community. He stated Banana Republic would provide a localized assortment of product offerings, year round that is curated specifically to serve the community through a range of merchandise and price points for all genders. They are also aiming to design a space providing a store experience to be embraced by the local community, creating an elevated experience for all customer touchpoints inside the store. He reiterated the need for both the street and basement levels to create a space large enough to support serving the general local retail and make the project financially feasible. Ms. Kate Johnson noted the City Attorney’s office was provided an email of a public comment that she would like to read into the record (refer to Exhibit E on the Agenda Packet). She stated the email was from Leah Fielding and then read the email which offered support for Banana Republic. Mr. McKnight then closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Mr. McKnight then asked staff for any rebuttal or clarification of public comment. Ms. Simon offered to display the two draft resolutions. Mr. Bill Guth asked if he could provide public comment. Mr. McKnight responded he could have time. Mr. Guth he is generally quite in support of the variance because the City’s efforts to provide affordable retail, however well meaning, have not worked. He views it as an opportunity for general and affordable retail. He believes the overall intent is there and if a little bit of thought can be brought to make sure if Banana Republic doesn’t remain in the space, the community will not be disadvantaged in any way. Mr. Barnhill then displayed the denial draft version. Ms. Simon noted Ms. Adams had sent some requested amendments for the approval draft version. She reiterated staff is recommending denial. Mr. McKnight asked Ms. Adams for any rebuttal of clarification of the public comment. Ms. Adams did not have any rebuttal regarding the public comment, but noted she requested a change to the draft denial resolution to clarify the corresponding code section for the decision. She has provided the changes to staff. 7 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2022 Page 6 of 8 Ms. Simon feels the criteria have already been clarified in the resolution. She pointed out this is an evaluation of a hardship and a variance and not evaluation of the success or lack of success of the City's various efforts to try to preserve some affordable commercial space in town. Ms. Johnson noted the suggested addition of a deed restriction by the applicant is not part of the criteria under review and the commission cannot mandate the deed restriction, so it would be a voluntary act by the applicant. Mr. McKnight then opened for commissioner discussion. Ms. McGovern does not feel the applicant has demonstrated a specific hardship and had three years before the vested rights expired to combine the two units. She feels mentioning Banana Republic is an attempt to play on the commissioner’s emotions, but the commissioners will not be negotiating or signing a lease and the negotiations could break down tomorrow. She is concerned the resulting large space could be rented to anybody and they may not be locally serving. She noted the voluntary deed restriction is not a criteria and as a specialty retail, they would eliminate clothing retailers as written in the code. She is not ready to approve the variance request. Mr. Rose feels a hardship exists to fill the second tier space with a viable business and Banana Republic meets the spirit of being locally serving. He does not feel the basement space would be highly desirable by itself. He would grant the variance with a stipulation if Banana Republic left, it would go back up for discussion for the next potential tenant to make sure the spirit of it is still met. Ms. McGovern noted the commission cannot make the selection of a tenant part of the criteria. Mr. Rose stated he would still go with the spirit of it all and feels it’s a hardship to fill these spaces based on standard item 2) …minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the parcel, building or structure. Ms. Johnson reminded the commissioners the commission can’t dictate what businesses or type of businesses the space can be leased to by the owner. She added the proposed deed restriction states the property would be deed restricted for general retail use only and would go away if the owner wanted to lease to a non-general retailer. She stated they would have to separate the spaces because they would no longer have approval for the two spaces combined. Mr. Rose believes that goes with the first standard stating generally consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of this Title and Municipal Code. Ms. Carver does not believe the code matches the intent and it is extraordinarily difficult to rent a basement space with no windows. She feels a downstairs space with a staircase would make the space very usable. She believes Banana Republic would make a great store. She agrees with some of the public commenters stating the intent of the code is good, but not working. She would vote to approve the variance. Ms. McGovern asked Ms. Carver how she feels about the variance criteria. Ms. Carver responded the application is not a hardship based on the review criteria and would deny it even though her heart says something else. Ms. Rockhill stated she hates to see empty spaces in Aspen. And with the current climate and retail mix and disappointment people are experiencing, she thinks it is an interesting opportunity. She sees the review criteria and Ms. McGovern’s point but is fighting with common sense as to what Aspen could really use and needs. 8 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2022 Page 7 of 8 Mr. McKnight asked Ms. Carver to confirm her position. Ms. Carver said she would go out on a limb and say she is in favor of approving the variance request because she feels it could be a useful space. Mr. McKnight stated he is more on the side of Ms. McGovern based on the review criteria. He does not believe the hardship was proven to exist by the applicant. Ms. Rockhill believes the deed restriction is a very important part of the application and doesn’t want just anyone to be able to utilize the space. She would like to be very clear on expectations to whatever legal extent is possible. Ms. Simon and Mr. Barnhill then then displayed the draft resolution for approval to make sure it contains what the commission wants in it. Ms. Simon asked the commissioners to expand on the fifth Whereas clause to define the hardships existing to grant the variance. She added the reference to the deed restriction further down in the resolution needs to include what the commissioners want it to state. Ms. Simon noted a clarification had been received from the applicant earlier today regarding the number of SF available as specified in Section 1. The applicant will not have 365 SF of second tier space in the basement and will only have the 180 SF of second tier space on the second floor. All the other space will be waived. Ms. Adams then displayed and read the proposed deed restriction language to be added to Section 1. Ms. Rockhill, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Simon and Ms. McGovern suggested some changes regarding what happens if the space is no longer used per identified. The changes to Section 1 are included below. The applicant voluntarily agrees to deed restrict the combined ground level and basement level spaces to General Retail Use. The deed restriction shall specify that the ground level and basement level spaces are required to be separated should the owner, at their own discretion, decide to lease the combined space approved herein to a use other than General Retail as defined in the Land Use Code. The variance approval shall vacate, and the project shall be restored to the approved plan for commercial space as shown in Exhibit A upon the use of the combined space for anything other than General Retail as defined in the Land Use Code on January 4, 2022 and provided below. Mr. McKnight asked the commissioners in favor of approving the variance to identify the hardships allowing for a variance. Ms. Carver feels the hardship is the space is practically unusable. Mr. Rose and Ms. Rockhill agreed with Ms. Carver. Ms. Rockhill motioned to approve Resolution #1, Series 2022 incorporating the deed restriction and correct square footage. Ms. Rockhill amended her motion stating she motioned to approve Resolution #1, Series 2022, approving the variance request for 420 E Hyman Ave with the condition the deed restriction is included as a condition of approval and the SF are amended as proposed by staff. Mr. Rose seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Ms. Carver, yes; Ms. McGovern, no; Mr. Rose, yes; Ms. Rockhill, yes; Mr. McKnight, no; for a total of three (3) in favor – two (2) not in favor. The motion passed. Mr. McKnight then closed the hearing and thanked everyone. 9 Minutes Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission January 4, 2022 Page 8 of 8 OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Johnson described the options the board to elect a chair and vice-chair for the new year. Mr. McKnight stated he would prefer not to be chair this year and nominated Ms. McGovern as chair. Ms. Rockhill and Ms. Carver agreed with his nomination. Ms. McGovern accepted the chair nomination. Mr. McKnight accepted the vice-chair nomination. Ms. Carver motioned to elect Ms. McGovern as chair and Mr. McKnight as vice-chair for 2022. Mr. Rose seconded the motion. Mr. McKnight requested a roll call: Ms. Rockhill, yes; McGovern, yes; Mr. McKnight, yes; Ms. Mr. Rose, yes; Ms. Carver, yes; for a total of five (5) in favor – zero (0) not in favor. The motion passed. Ms. McGovern motioned to adjourn and was seconded by Ms. Carver. All in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 6:23 pm. Cindy Klob, Records Manager 10 Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Michelle Bonfils Thibeault,AICP Planner II THRU: Amy Simon, Planning Director MEMO DATE:January 24, 2022 MEETING DATE:February 1, 2022 RE:Rio Grande Park, Minor Amendment to Detailed Review Approval APPLICANT: City of Aspen, City Parks and Recreation Department REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Tunte, City Parks Department LOCATION: Lot 1, Rio Grande Park CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING & USE This property is located in the Public (PUB) zone district with a Planned Development (PD) overlay and is developed as a municipal park in park City of Aspen Civic Master Plan PD. SUMMARY:The applicant requests a Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval for a Wayfinding and Interpretive Signage Plan along the existing trails in the Rio Grande Park. The prior development approval in Ordinance 046, Series of 2006,did not address signage of any type. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission adopt the Resolution to approve the Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval as proposed. Figure 1.Rio Grande Park. Aerial Image 11 Page 2 of 2 LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission: Minor Amendment to Project Review Approval (Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.110): An application requesting a Wayfinding and Interpretive Signage Plan along the existing trails of the Rio Grande Park, City of Aspen Civic Master Plan PD, which requires Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review body. SUMMARY OF PROJECT: Existing Conditions: The applicant proposes to install wayfinding and interpretive signage along existing trails throughout the Rio Grande Park. The trails are part of the Rio Grande Specially Planed Area (SPA), which received its rezoning in 1977 under Ordinance No. 54. The SPA later received master plan approval under Resolution No. 42 (Series of 1993) and was used as a basis for improvements to the park over time. However, Ordinance No. 46 (Series of 2006) approved the City of Aspen Civic Master Plan which superseded the 1993 plan. Signage is not specifically addressed in any of the former approval documents. STAFF COMMENTS: The application is subject to Minor Amendment of a Detailed Review Approval as it entails a design parameter -- signage, which was not defined in any of the original approvals. The proposed wayfinding and interpretive signs are a means of adding a design element to the existing park that reinforces the outdoor culture of our community by educating park visitors with informational and interpretive signage at the various resources of the park. This is in direct support of a city goal (outlined in Section 26.510) “to Address community needs relating to upgrading the quality of the tourist experience, preserving the unique natural environment, preserving and enhancing the high-quality human existence, retaining the City's premier status in an increasingly competitive resort market, preserving the historically and architecturally unique character of the City, fostering the "village style" quality of the City and preserving and enhancing scenic views.” RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the proposed signage plan finding that the review criteria are met. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution #04, Series of 2022 Exhibit A – Minor Amendment to Detailed Review Approval Criteria Exhibit B – Application 12 P&Z Resolution # ____, Series of 2022 1 RESOLUTION #04 (SERIES OF 2022) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING MINOR AMENDMENT TO A DETAILED REVIEW APPROVAL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOT 1, RIO GRANDE SUBDIVISION, RIO GRANDE PARK , CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL ID: 2737-073-06-851 WHEREAS, the Community Development department received an application from the City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department, requesting Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review Approval for a signage plan at the existing park located at Lot 1, Rio Grande Subdivision, Rio Grande Park; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS,upon review of the application and the Land Use Code standards, and referral of the application to other City Departments for comments, the Community Development Director recommends Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval for the application proposed; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the application under the applicable provisions of the Land Use Code as identified herein, in particular Section 26.445.110 Planned Development Amendments, reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director and took and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing on February 1, 2022; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposalfor Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approvalmeets the applicable review criteria and that approval of the request as described below is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, 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, and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approves Resolution #04, Series of 2022, by a ____ to ___ (x - x) vote, recommending approval for Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review Approval as identified herein. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds as follows: Section 1:Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review Approval The proposed wayfinding and interpretive signage plan to be located along existing trails throughout the Rio Grande Park are minor in nature, and further define the scope of the approved development and meet the basic intent of the original development application. The trails are part 13 P&Z Resolution # ____, Series of 2022 2 of the Rio Grande Specially Planed Area (SPA), which received its rezoning in 1977 under Ordinance No. 54. The SPA later received master plan approval under Resolution No. 42 (Series of 1993) and was used as a basis for improvements to the park over time. However, Ordinance No. 46 (Series of 2006) approved the City of Aspen Civic Master Plan which superseded the 1993 plan. Former approvals do not specifically address existing or future signage in the park. The approved signage plan defines design parameters for signage within the park. Future modifications to the approved signs that exceed typical maintenance may require additional PD Amendments. No lighting of signage shall be permitted. Section 2: Material Representations 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 site development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: Existing Litigation 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 4: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on February 1, 2022. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ___________________________________ ________________________ Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Teraissa McGovern, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager Attachment: Exhibit A-Drawings representing the approved signage plan. 14 Exhibit A: Minor Amendment to a Planned Development Approval - Review Criteria (e)Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval. An amendment found by the Community Development Director consistent with a Project Review approval and to be generally consistent with the allowances and limitations of a Detailed Review approval, or which otherwise represents an insubstantial change, but which does not meet the established thresholds for an insubstantial amendment, may be approved, approved with conditions or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable, pursuant to 26.445.040(b)(3) - Step Three. 26.445.445.070 Detailed Review Standards Detailed Review shall focus on the comprehensive evaluation of the specific aspects of the development, including utility placement, and architectural materials. In the review of a development application for Detailed Review, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Historic Preservation Commission as applicable, shall consider the following: A. Compliance with Project Review Approval.The proposed development, including all dimensions and uses, is consistent with the Project Review approval and adequately addresses conditions on the approval and direction received during the Project Review. Staff Finding: The applicant proposes to install wayfinding and interpretive signage along existing trails throughout the Rio Grande Park. The trails are part of the Rio Grande Specially Planed Area (SPA), which received its rezoning in 1977 under Ordinance No. 54. The SPA later received master plan approval under Resolution No. 42 (Series of 1993) and was used as a basis for improvements to the park over time. However, Ordinance No. 46 (Series of 2006) approved the City of Aspen Civic Master Plan superseded the 1993 plan. Signage is not specifically addressed in any of the former approval documents. A goal of the sign code, Section 26.510 of the land use code, is to “Address community needs relating to upgrading the quality of the tourist experience, preserving the unique natural environment, preserving and enhancing the high-quality human existence, retaining the City's premier status in an increasingly competitive resort market, preserving the historically and architecturally unique character of the City, fostering the "village style" quality of the City and preserving and enhancing scenic views.” The proposed signage is typical of municipal parks. The proposed wayfinding signs and interpretive signs are a means adding a design element to the existing park that reinforces the outdoor culture of the community by educating park visitors with informational and interpretive signage at the various resources of the park. The materials of the proposed signs are a natural aesthetic of live edge wood slabs, informational graphics mounted on boulders, and similar materials consistent with existing park improvements and design. At the conclusion of the proposed changes, the use and character of the project will remain the same. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 15 Exhibit A: Minor Amendment to a Planned Development Approval - Review Criteria B. Growth Management.The proposed development has received all required GMQS allotments, or is concurrently seeking allotments. Staff Finding: No GMQS allotments are required for this application. This standard is not applicable. C. Site Planning and Landscape Architecture.The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: (1) The landscape plan exhibits a well-designed treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation, and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. Vegetation removal, protection, and restoration plans shall be acceptable to the Director of Parks and Open Space. Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable. No changes or additions to existing vegetation are proposed. (2) Buildings and site grading provide simple, at-grade entrances and minimize extensive grade changes along building exteriors. The project meets or exceeds the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and applicable requirements for emergency, maintenance, and service vehicle access. Adequate snow storage is accommodated. Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable. No buildings or site grading is proposed. (3) Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into the landscape in a manner that enhances the site. Staff Finding: The proposed signage will not be illuminated or have any features requiring electricity. This standard is not applicable. (4) All site lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City's outdoor lighting standards. Staff Finding: No lighting is proposed for this application. This standard is not applicable. (5) Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in compliance with Title 29— Engineering Design Standards and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. Staff Finding: No changes to site drainage are proposed for this application. This standard is not applicable. D. Design Standards and Architecture.The proposed architectural details emphasize quality construction and design characteristics. In meeting this standard, the following criteria shall be used: 16 Exhibit A: Minor Amendment to a Planned Development Approval - Review Criteria (1) The project architecture provides for visual interest and incorporates present-day details and use of materials respectful of the community's past without attempting to mimic history. Staff Finding: The proposed wayfinding signs and interpretive signs are a means adding a design element to the existing park that reinforces the outdoor culture of our community by educating visitors with informational and interpretive signage at the various resources of the park. The materials of the proposed signs have a natural aesthetic of live edge wood slabs, informational graphics mounted on boulders, and similar materials consistent with existing park improvements and design. Three (3) of the proposed 19 signs replace existing signage and reuse existing signposts. Seven (7) of the proposed signs are directional blade signs (words and arrows only). There are four park entrance markers, located at the north entry, south entry, west entry and east entries to the park. The main park entrance from Rio Grande Place and across from the new City Hall is designed on a boulder face, consistent with the existing landscaping of the park. Three of these entrance markers are designed on a rockwork podium to match existing rockwork located throughout the park. The Park entrance markers better inform visitors of the programming of the park and feature a QR code taking the visitor to a mobile app. The QR code/mobile app is a new feature to engage visitors in the history of town and the park; the features of the John Denver Sanctuary; the features and functions of the wetlands and river; the schedule of events at Theatre Aspen; and similar informational services. A two-panel exhibit and message board is located near the entrance to Theatre Aspen and the public restroom facilities. A single-panel exhibit/message board is located at the westerly access point to the Theatre Aspen facilities. Three (3) interpretive columns and a history exhibit are also proposed. These are interpretive information mounted on a live edge wood slab and finished with a resin or similar coating. The natural material design is consistent with the park landscape. No signs are proposed inside the John Denver Sanctuary. The applicant is encouraged to vet the historical information with the Aspen Historical Society, if not already planned, and encouraged to plan for periodic updates to the information provided. Staff finds this criterion to be met. (2) Exterior materials are of a high quality, durability, and comply with applicable design standards, including those outlined in Chapter 26.410,Residential Design Standards, Chapter 26.412,Commercial Design Standards, and Chapter 26.415,Historic Preservation. Staff Finding: The above-referenced design standards are not applicable to this municipal park request. (3) Building entrances are sited or designed to minimize icing and snow shedding effects. 17 Exhibit A: Minor Amendment to a Planned Development Approval - Review Criteria Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable. No buildings or site grading is proposed. (4) Energy efficiency or production features are integrated into structures in a manner that enhances the architecture. Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable. (5) All structure lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. All exterior lighting shall comply with the City's outdoor lighting standards. Staff Finding: No lighting is proposed for this application. E. Common Parks, Open Space, Recreation Areas, or Facilities.If the proposed development includes common parks, open space, recreation areas, or common facilities, a proportionate, undivided interest is deeded in perpetuity to each lot or dwelling unit owner within the Planned Development. An adequate assurance through a Development Agreement for the permanent care and maintenance of open spaces, recreation areas, and shared facilities together with a prohibition against future development is required. Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable. F. Pedestrian, bicycle & transit facilities.The development improves pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. These facilities and improvements shall be prioritized over vehicular facilities and improvements. Any new vehicular access points minimize impacts on existing pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities. Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of the Project Review and as otherwise required in the Land Use Code. These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements and to determine any required cost estimating for surety requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable. G. Engineering Design Standards.There has been accurate identification of engineering design and mitigation techniques necessary for development of the proposed subdivision to comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29—Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29— Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept 18 Exhibit A: Minor Amendment to a Planned Development Approval - Review Criteria complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Staff Finding: This standard is not applicable. H. Public Infrastructure and Facilities.The proposed Planned Development shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the project. Improvements shall be at the sole costs of the developer. Any specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines as required during Project Review comply with the applicable requirements of Municipal Code Title 29— Engineering Design Standards and the City of Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). These plans shall provide sufficient detail to determine if the design or mitigation concept complies with the intent of the requirements, but do not need to be detailed construction documents. Staff Finding: No additional resources, infrastructure or facilities are necessary for the proposed wayfinding and interpretive signage plan. This standard is not applicable. I. Phasing of development plan.If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be designed to function as a complete development and shall not be reliant on subsequent phases. Phasing shall insulate, to the extent practical, occupants of initial phases from the construction of later phases. All necessary or proportionate improvements to public facilities, payment of impact fees and fees-in-lieu, construction of any facilities to be used jointly by residents of the Planned Development, construction of any required affordable housing, and any mitigation measures shall be completed concurrent or prior to the respective impacts associated with the phase. Staff Finding: Phasing is not requested for this application. This standard is not applicable. 19 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GENERAL LAND USE PACKET Attached is an Application for review of Development that requires Land Use Review pursuant to The City of Aspen Land Use Code: Included in this package are the following attachments: 1.Development Application Fee Policy, Fee Schedule and Agreement to Pay Application Fees Form 2.Land Use Application Form 3.Dimensional Requirements Form (if required) 4.HOA Compliance Form 5.Development Review Procedure All applications are reviewed based on the criteria established in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code. Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code is available at the City Clerk’s Office on the second floor of City Hall and on the internet at https://library.municode.com/co/aspen/codes/municipal_code. We require all applicants to hold a Pre-Application Conference with a Planner in the Community Development Department so that the requirements for submitting a complete application can be fully described. This meeting can happen in person or by phone or email. Also, depending upon the complexity of the development proposed, submitting one copy of the development application to the Case Planner to determine accuracy, inefficiencies, or redundancies can reduce the overall cost of materials and staff time. Please recognize that review of these materials does not substitute for a complete review of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. While this application package attempts to summarize the key provisions of the Code as they apply to your type of development, it cannot possibly replicate the detail or the scope of the Code. If you have questions that are not answered by the materials in this package, we suggest that you contact the staff member assigned to your case, contact Planner of the Day (970-429-2764/planneroftheday@gmail.com), or consult the applicable sections of the Aspen Land Use Code. 20 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 Land Use Review Fee Policy The City of Aspen has established a review fee policy for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for applications that normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. Review fees for other City Departments reviewing the application (referral departments) also will be collected when necessary. Flat fees are cumulative, i.e., an application with multiple flat fees must pay the sum of those flat fees. Flat fees are not refundable. A review fee deposit is collected by Community Development when more extensive staff time is required. Actual staff time spent will be charged against the deposit. Various City staff also may charge their time spent on the case in addition to the Case Planner. The deposit amount may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Community Development Department Director, the project is expected to take significantly less time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination on the deposit amount shall be made during the pre-application conference by the Case Planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. All applications must include an Agreement to Pay Application Fees. One payment including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the City of Aspen. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required fee(s). The Community Development Department shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required to process a land use application requiring a deposit. The City can provide a summary report of fees due at the applicant’s request. The applicant will be billed for the additional costs incurred by the City when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time or expense than is covered by the deposit. Any direct costs attributable to a project review shall be billed to the applicant with no additional administrative charge. In the event the processing of an application takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the Department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee to the applicant. Fees shall be due regardless of whether an applicant receives approval. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final, and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purpose of billing. Upon conceptual approval, all billing shall be reconciled, and past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final submission. Upon final approval, all billing shall again be reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of technical documents for recordation. The Community Development Director may cease processing of a land use application for which an unpaid invoice is 30 or more days past due. Unpaid invoices of 90 days or more past due may be assessed a late fee of 1.75% per month. An unpaid invoice of 120 days or more may be subject to additional actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court judge. All payment information is public domain. All invoices shall be paid prior to issuance of a Development Order or recordation of development agreements and plats. The City will not accept a building permit for a property until all invoices are paid in full. For permits already accepted, any unpaid invoice of 90 or more days may result in cessation of building permit processing or issuance of a stop work order until full payment is made. The property owner of record is the party responsible for payment of all costs associated with a land use application for the property. Any secondary agreement between a property owner and an applicant representing the owner (e.g. a contract purchaser) regarding payment of fees is solely between those private parties. 21 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 Agreement to Pay Application Fees An agreement between the City of Aspen (“City”) and Address of Property: Please type or print in all caps Property Owner Name: Representative Name (if different from Property Owner): Billing Name and Address - Send Bills to: Contact info for billing: e-mail: Phone: I understand that the City has adopted, via Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2020, review fees for Land Use applications, and payment of these fees is a condition precedent to determining application completeness. I understand that as the property owner, I am responsible for paying all fees for this development application. For flat fees and referral fees: I agree to pay the following fees for the services indicated. I understand that these flat fees are non-refundable. $. flat fee for . $. flat fee for $. flat fee for . $. flat fee for For deposit cases only: The City and I understand that because of the size, nature, or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to know the full extent or total costs involved in processing the application. I understand that additional costs over and above the deposit may accrue. I understand and agree that it is impracticable for City staff to complete processing, review, and presentation of sufficient information to enable legally required findings to be made for project consideration unless invoices are paid in full. The City and I understand and agree that invoices sent by the City to the above listed billing address and not returned to the City shall be considered by the City as being received by me. I agree to remit payment within 30 days of presentation of an invoice by the City for such services. I have read, understood, and agree to the Land Use Review Fee Policy, including consequences for non-payment. I agree to pay the following initial deposit amounts for the specified hours of staff time. I understand that payment of a deposit does not render an application complete or compliant with approval criteria. If actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, I agree to pay additional monthly billings to the City to reimburse the City for processing my application at the hourly rates hereinafter stated. $ deposit for hours of Community Development Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. $ deposit for hours of Engineering Department staff time. Additional time above the deposit amount will be billed at $325.00 per hour. City of Aspen: Phillip Supino, AICP Community Development Director City Use: Fees Due: $ Received $ Case # Signature: PRINT Name: Title: 22 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTIVATIVE: Description: Existing and Proposed Conditions Review: Administrative or Board Review Required Land Use Review(s): Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) required fields: Net Leasable square footage Lodge Pillows Free Market dwelling units Affordable Housing dwelling units Essential Public Facility square footage Have you included the following? FEES DUE: $ Pre-Application Conference Summary Signed Fee Agreement HOA Compliance form All items listed in checklist on PreApplication Conference Summary Name: Address: Phone#: email: Address: Phone #: email: Name: Project Name and Address: Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 23 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 April 2020 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Complete only if required by the PreApplication checklist Project and Location Applicant: Zone District: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area: **Please refer to section 26.575.020 for information on how to calculate Net Lot Area Please fill out all relevant dimensions Single Family and Duplex Residential 1) Floor Area (square feet) 2) Maximum Height 3) Front Setback 4) Rear Setback 5) Side Setbacks 6) Combined Side Setbacks 7) % Site Coverage Existing Allowed Proposed Multi-family Residential 1)Number of Units 2)Parcel Density (see 26.710.090.C.10) 3)FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 4)Floor Area (square feet) Existing Allowed Proposed 8) Minimum distance between buildings Proposed % of demolition 5) Maximum Height 6) Front Setback 7) Rear Setback 8) Side Setbacks Proposed % of demolition Commercial Proposed Use(s) Existing Allowed Proposed 1) FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 2) Floor Area (square feet) 3) Maximum Height 4) Off-Street Parking Spaces 5) Second Tier (square feet) 6) Pedestrian Amenity (square feet) Proposed % of demolition Existing non-conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: Lodge Additional Use(s) 1)FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 2)Floor Area (square feet) 3)Maximum Height 4)Free Market Residential(square feet) 4)Front setback 5)Rear setback 6)Side setbacks 7)Off-Street Parking Spaces 8)Pedestrian Amenity (square feet) Proposed % of demolition Existing Allowed Proposed 24 April 2020 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Homeowner Association Compliance Policy All land use applications within the City of Aspen are required to include a Homeowner Association Compliance Form (this form) certifying that the scope of work included in the land use application complies with all applicable covenants and homeowner association policies. The certification must be signed by the property owner or Attorney representing the property owner. Property Owner (“I”): Name: Email: Phone No.: Address of Property: (subject of application) I certify as follows: (pick one) □This property is not subject to a homeowner association or other form of private c ovenant. □This property is subject to a homeowner association or private covenant, and the improvements proposed in this land use application do not require approval by the homeowners association or covenant beneficiary. □This property is subject to a homeowners association or private covenant and the improvements proposed in this land use application have been approved by the homeowners a ssociation or covenant beneficiary. I understand this policy and I understand the City of Aspen does not interpret, enforce, or manage the applicability, meaning or effect of private covenants or homeowner association rules or bylaws. I understand that this document is a public document. Owner signature: Date: Owner printed name: or, Attorney signature: Date: Attorney printed name: 25 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT April 2020 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURE 1.Attend pre-application conference. During this one-on-one meeting, staff will determine the review process applies to your development proposal and will identify the materials necessary to review your application. 2.Submit Development Application. Based on your pre-application meeting, you should complete to the application package and submit the requested number of copies of the complete application and the appropriate processing fee to the Community Development Department. 3.Determination of Completeness. Within five (5) working days of the date of your submission, staff will review the application and notify you in writing whether the application is complete or if additional materials are required. Please be aware that the purpose of the completeness review is to determine whether or not the information you have submitted is adequate to review the request, and not whether the information is sufficient to obtain approval. 4.Staff Review of Development Application. Once your application is determined to be complete, it will be reviewed by the staff for compliance with the applicable standards of the Code. During the staff review stage, the application will be referred to other agencies for comments. The Planner assigned to your case or the agency may contact you if additional information is needed or if problems are identified. Staff will draft a memo for signature by the Community Development Director that explains whether your application complies with the Code, and will list any conditions that should apply if the application is to be approved. Final approval of any Development Application that amends a recorded document, such as a plat, agreement, or deed restriction, will require the applicant to prepare an amended version of that document for review and approval by staff. Staff will provide the applicant with the applicable contents for the revised plat. The City Attorney is normally in charge of the form for recorded agreements and deed restrictions. We suggest that you not go to the trouble or expense of preparing these documents until the staff has determined that your application is eligible for the requested amendment or exemption. 5. Board Review of Application. If a public hearing is required for the land use action that you are requesting, the Planning staff will schedule a hearing date for the application upon determination that the application is complete. The hearing(s) will be scheduled before the appropriate reviewing board(s). The applicant will be required to mail notice (one copy provided by the Community Development Department) to property owners within 30 feet of the subject property and post notice (sign available at the Community Development Department) of the public hearing on the site at least fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing date. (Please see Attachment 6 for instructions.) The Planning staff will publish notice of the hearing in the paper for land use requests that require publication. The Planning staff will then formulate a recommendation on the land use request and draft a memo to the reviewing board(s). Staff will supply the applicant with a copy of the Planning staff’s memo, approximately five (5) days prior to the hearing. The public hearing(s) will take place before the appropriate review boards. Public hearings include a presentation by the Planning staff, a presentation by the applicant (optional), consideration of public comment, and the reviewing board’s questions and decision. (Continued on next page) 26 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT April 2020 City of Aspen|130 S. Galena St.|(970) 920 5090 6.Issuance of Development Order. If the land use review is approved, then the Planning staff will issue a Development Order, which allows the applicant to submit a building permit application. 7.Receipt of Building Permit. Once you have received a copy of the signed staff approval, you may apply for a building permit. During this time, your project will be examined for its compliance with the Uniform Building Code. It also will be checked for compliance with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations that were not reviewed in detail during the land use case review. (This might include a check of floor area ratios, setbacks, parking, open space and the like). Impact fees for water, sewer, parks, and employee housing will be collected as part of the permitting process. Any document required to be recorded, such as a plat, deed restriction, or agreement, will be reviewed and recorded before a building permit application is submitted. 27 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY DATE: 10/14/21 PLANNER: Michelle Bonfils Thibeault, michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com PROJECT ADDRESS: Lot 1, Rio Grande Subdivision – Rio Grande Park PARCEL ID# 2737-073-06-851 REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Tunte, City of Aspen Park’s Department DESCRIPTION: The City of Aspen (represented by the Parks Department) is proposing changes to the Rio Grande Park. The changes include improved wayfinding signs, information and interpretive signs along the trails in the park. The trails are part of the Rio Grande Specially Planed Area (SPA), which received its rezoning in 1977 under Ordinance No. 54. The SPA later received master plan approval under Resolution No. 42, 1993 and was used as a basis for improvements to the park over time. However, Ordinance No. 46 (Series of 2006) approved the City of Aspen Civic Master Plan which superseded the 1993 plan. Signage is not specifically addressed in the former approval documents. Although approved as a SPA, changes to the Land Use Code now consider former SPAs to be a Planned Development (PD) and reviewed under the standards for a PD. Under the PD chapter (26.445), the proposed changes are considered a Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval. A Minor Amendment is a one-step review before the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation from the Trails and Open Space board would be an appropriate submission with the application although not required. RELEVANT LAND USE CODE SECTIONS: Section Number Section Title 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.445.110.D Planned Development Amendments 26.445.110 E. Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval 26.445.040 B.3. Step-3 – Detailed review For your convenience – links to the Land Use Application and Land Use Code are below: Land Use Application Land Use Code REVIEW BY: • Community Development Staff for Complete Application and Recommendation • Public hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission for Determination PUBLIC HEARING: Yes, Planning and Zoning Commission (One Step, Minor PD Amendment to Project Review Approval) 28 PLANNING FEES: $4,550 deposit for 14 hours of staff time (Additional/fewer hours billed/refunded at $325 per hour) REFERRAL FEES: $325 - Engineering Department deposit for one hour (Additional hours billed at $325 per hour) TOTAL DEPOSIT: $4,875 APPLICATION CHECKLIST – PLEASE EMAIL APPLICATION TO: michelle.bonfils@cityofaspen.com  Completed Land Use Application and signed Fee Agreement.  Pre-application Conference Summary (this document).  Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current (no older than 6 months) certificate from a title insurance company, an ownership and encumbrance report, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner’s right to apply for the Development Application. The purpose of this requirement is to show that the Applicant has the authority to apply for a Land Use Case.  A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. Please include drawings/diagrams of the proposed development, the existing and proposed total area of each sign for each location.  A sign plan describing the location and dimensions of the signs and statements regarding future improvements and/or maintenance needs of the signs to allow for future ability to conduct maintenance, improvements and similar updates to the signs and sign mounts.  A site improvement survey including topography, existing structures, and vegetation showing the current status of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor by licensed in the State of Colorado. This survey also is required to depict the 100-year flood plain, the high-water mark of the roaring fork river. Once the copy is deemed complete by staff, the following items will then need to be submitted:  Total fee for review of the application. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 29 Report Created: 12/9/2021 3:22:48 PM Parcel ID: 273707306851Pitkin County Parcel Report No Zoning Overlay on this parcel AACP Smuggler Zone District Overlays Master Plan Area Caucus Boundaries Pitkin County Library Aspen School District No. 1 (RE) Aspen Fire Protection District City of Aspen Water Service Area Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Library District School District Fire District Water District Sewer System Services Land Use Category Improvements Assessor's Information Township, Range, Section 12.309 Acres 480 RIO GRANDE PL Aspen GIS Parcel Size Address (Assessor's Records) Jurisdiction Property Information 9149: Exempt-Political Subdivision - Non-Residential 480 RIO GRA Address (GIS Points)470 RIO GRANDE PL Address (GIS Points)460 RIO GRANDE PL Address (GIS Points)500 RIO GRANDE PL 130 S GALENA ST ASPEN, CO 81611 R014328 CITY OF ASPENOwner Account Owner Address T:10, R:84, S:7 Subdivision: RIO GRANDE Lot: 1 AMENDED KNOWN AS THE RIO GRANDE PARKLegal Description No Zoning District on this parcelZone District 30 2 1 U.S. House of Representatives District Board of County Commissioners District(s) State Senate District State House District Voting Precinct Voting Information 3 5 61 Millionaire Millsite, Randall Park, SMOS - Ballarat/General Jackson, SMOS - Robert Emmett USMS# 6044, Hallam Lake, SMOS - Result USMS# 6044, Hunter Valley Way, Freddie Fisher Park, Reeder, Mill Street Parcel, SMOS - Contraband USMS# 4471, Little Cloud, Rubey Lot 7, Garrish Park, SMOS - Pride of Aspen #7883, Rubey Lot 6/ Williams Woods, Prockter, Little Cloud Park, SMOS - Mascotte 99, Millionaire Lode, Jenny Adair Park, SMOS - Silver Brick, Barbee Hunter Creek Extension, Mascotte 99, W Hallam St, Trueman , Recycle Center, Williams Ranch, East of Aspen , Rio Grande Park, Summit St Cutoff , Post Office, E Hallam St, East of Aspen, Courthouse, Oklahoma Flats, No Problem Joe, Ajax - Little Cloud connector, Lani White, John Denver Sanctuary, Puppy Smith, Red Mountain Rd, E Hopkins Ave, Little Cloud, Clarendon, HWY 82, Scotties, Midland Trail , Lower Hunter Creek, Smuggler Mountain Rd, W Hopkins Ave, Wheeler Ditch , Ajax, Aspen Mountain Rd, Rio Grande, Trueman, Alps, Ute Ave, Mollie Gibson, Red Brick, Midland - 3rd St, Snyder Park, Lone Pine, W Hopkins Path Wagner Park, Pioneer Park, Hillyard Park, Triangle Park, Koch Lumber Park, Wheeler Park, Conner Memorial Park, Clapper Park, Francis Whitaker Park, Veterans Park, Paepcke Park, Yellow Brick School Park, Willoughby ParK, Library Plaza, Willa Park, Lift One A Park, Aspen Alps Park, Glory Hole Park, Anderson, Snyder Park, Molly Gibson Park, Rio Grande Skate Park, Rio Grande Park, John Denver Sanctuary, Herron Park, Newbury Park, Cooper Park, Hyman Park, Fox Crossing Park, Silver Circle Ice Rink Open Spaces Nearby (1/2 Mile) Trails Nearby (1/2 Mile) Parks Nearby (1/2 Mile) Public Amenities Upper Roaring Fork River Not within a Historic District No Zoning Overlay on this parcel Watershed Subbasin Watershed Drainage Historic District Zone District Overlays Tax Information Address Retired Parcel Documents Parcel 273707306851 470 RIO GRANDE PL Roaring Fork River above Aspen Total NO TAX -- PUBLIC LAND 0 $0.00 AmountAuthorityMill Levy 0 $0.00 273707305001 31 Pitkin County GIS presents the information and data on this report as a service to the public. Every effort has been made to ensure that the information and data contained in the report is accurate, but the accuracy may change. http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link. Assessing accuracy and reliability of information and data is the sole responsibility of the user. The user understands he or she is solely responsible and liable for use, modification, or distribution of any information or data obtained on this web site. Disclaimer Data is presented in WGS 1984 Web Mercator. Size, shape, measurement and overlay of features may be distorted. In some cases, multiple results could be valid; for example, Zoning. In other cases, a parcel may cross over the boundary of more than one data area, for example, multiple Precincts. More information about Trails, Parks and Open Space can be found www.pitkinoutside.org. Visit the Pitkin County GIS Department at 32 RIO GRANDE PARK AND JOHN DENVER SANCTUARY SIGNAGE AND WAYFINDING WRITTEN DESCRIPTION A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application and relevant land use approvals associated with the property. Please include drawings/diagrams of the proposed development, the existing and proposed total area of each sign for each location. The scope of work for Rio Grande Park and John Denver Sanctuary includes improved wayfinding signs, information and interpretive signs along the trails in the park (see the Sign Plan). The trails are part of the Rio Grande Specially Planed Area (SPA), which received its rezoning in 1977 under Ordinance No. 54. The SPA later received master plan approval under Resolution No. 42, 1993 and was used as a basis for improvements to the park over time. However, Ordinance No. 46 (Series of 2006) approved the City of Aspen Civic Master Plan which superseded the 1993 plan. Signage is not specifically addressed in the former approval documents. Although approved as a SPA, changes to the Land Use Code now consider former SPAs to be a Planned Development (PD) and reviewed under the standards for a PD. Under the PD chapter (26.445), the proposed changes are considered a Minor Amendment to a Detailed Review approval. A Minor Amendment is a one-step review before the Planning and Zoning Commission. A recommendation from the Trails and Open Space board would be an appropriate submission with the application although not required. 33 CLIENT City of Aspen PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits CONTRACT N/A DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Exhibit Design - 102% Dra 34 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.1 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Design Guidelines A0.2 Site Map A0.3 Element 1 Main Entry Monument A0.4 Element 2 Secondary Entrance Markers A0.5 Element 4Interpretive Columns A0.6 Element 5Low Pro le Wall-Mount Exhibits A0.10 Element 6Upright “Step Back in Time” Exhibit A0.13 Element 7Low Pro le In-Ground Exhibit A0.14 Element 8Redesign Low Pro le In-Ground Exhibit A0.15 Element 9 Two-Panel Upright Exhibit/Message Board A0.16 Element 11 Mobile App A0.17 SUBMITTAL NOTES Included in this submi al is the 102% dra interpretive exhibit design featuring nalized content and designs for each of the interpretive exhibit elements, as well as nal text (including for the app). Final text is included separately as a Word doc for archival purposes. Please note that all images are nal (except the maps for the app, which will be created during the production phase of that element). No further changes are anticipated at this time. NOTE: Design for elements 3 & 10 are not included in existing contract. ALL TEXT AND GRAPHICS ARE FINAL. BY DESIGNconservation 35 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.2 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Design Guidelines DESIGN GUIDELINES e following elements are in keeping with recommendations developed by the City of Aspen. BY DESIGNconservation 36 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.3 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Site Map SITE MAP NOTE: Design for elements 3 & 10 are not included in existing contract. BY DESIGNconservation 37 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.4 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 1 Main Entry Monument :: MAIN ENTRY MONUMENT South Entry A 4.1 :: FINAL CONTENT Main Entry Monument A 4.2 ELEMENT 1 Main Entry Monument Powder coated graphics, 24” w x 42” h mounted to rock face via threaded rod and epoxy BY DESIGNconservation 38 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.5 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 2 Secondary Entrance Markers :: SECONDARY ENTRANCE MARKERS East, North and West Entries A 5.1 :: FINAL CONTENT Secondary Entrance Markers A 5.27’18”3” deep All metal edges to be slightly rounded Veneer to match existing rock work at park ELEMENT 2 Secondary Entrance Markers Powder coated graphics, mounted to steel face 16” w x 42” h 5’BY DESIGNconservation 39 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.6 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 4Interpretive Columns ELEMENT 4 Interpretive Columns :: INTERPRETIVE COLUMNS—FRONT Along Main Entry Path A 6.1 :: INTERPRETIVE COLUMNS—BACK Along Main Entry Path A 6.2 Mild steel column (pre-rusted) Live edge wood slab Graphic panel (Powder coated aluminum graphics mounted to column) The double-sided interpretive exhibit columns combine mild steel with rustic, live-edge wood slabs and vivid graphic panels.78”30” 10” deep All metal edges to be slightly rounded :: INTERPRETIVE COLUMN Profile View A 6.3 :: INTERPRETIVE COLUMNS Dimensions A 6.4 Live edge wood slab finished with resin and/or marine-grade sealer Powder coated graphics, mounted via standoffs to steel face 22” w x 48” h BY DESIGNconservation 40 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.7 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 4Interpretive Columns Column AHistory ELEMENT 4 Interpretive Columns Column A :: INTERPRETIVE COLUMN—A History A 7.1 :: FINAL CONTENT Front A 7.2 :: FINAL CONTENT Back A 7.3 BY DESIGNconservation 41 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.8 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 4Interpretive Columns Column B Stormwater Treatment ELEMENT 4 Interpretive Columns Column B :: INTERPRETIVE COLUMN—B Stormwater Treatment A 8.1 :: FINAL CONTENT Front A 8.2 :: FINAL CONTENT Back A 8.3 BY DESIGNconservation 42 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.9 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 4Interpretive Columns Column C John Denver’s Legacy ELEMENT 4 Interpretive Columns Column C :: INTERPRETIVE COLUMN—C John Denver’s Legacy A 9.1 :: FINAL CONTENT Front A 9.2 :: FINAL CONTENT Back A 9.3 BY DESIGNconservation 43 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.10 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 5Low-Pro le Wall Mount Exhibits :: LOW PROFILE WALL MOUNT EXHIBITS Western edge of park A 10.1 ELEMENT 5 Low Pro le Wall Mount Exhibits (existing posts set in wall) 36”24” 18 ” 31” Live edge wood slab, size TBD, finish TBD (resin and/or marine-grade sealer) Exhibit panel will be attached to existing posts set in wall using a sleeve and set screw approach Graphic panels attach to steel backplate using standoffs or other spacers to hide hardware and provide needed dimension BY DESIGNconservation 44 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.11 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 5Low-Pro le Wall Mount Exhibits Panel ABio ltration ELEMENT 5 Low Pro le Wall Mount Exhibits (existing posts set in wall) :: FINAL CONTENT Low Profile Wall Mount Exhibit - Biofiltration A 11.1 BY DESIGNconservation 45 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.12 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 5Low-Pro le Wall Mount Exhibits Panel B Orientation ELEMENT 5 Low Pro le Wall Mount Exhibits (existing posts set in wall) :: FINAL CONTENT Low Profile Wall Mount Exhibit - Orientation A 12.1 BY DESIGNconservation 46 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.13 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 6Upright “Step Back in Time” Exhibit :: UPRIGHT STEP BACK IN TIME EXHIBIT Western edge of park A 13.1 ELEMENT 6 Upright “Step Back in Time” Exhibit 36”48”72”:: FINAL CONTENT Step Back in Time Exhibit A 13.2 Semi-translucent graphic panel BY DESIGNconservation 47 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.14 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 7Low Pro le In-Ground Exhibit Wildlife :: LOW PROFILE IN-GROUND EXHIBIT Wildlife A 14.1 ELEMENT 7 Low Pro le In-Ground Exhibit Wildlife :: FINAL CONTENT Wildlife A 14.2 Graphic panels attach to steel backplate using standoffs or other spacers to hide hardware and provide needed dimension 24”36”30-32”Live edge wood slab, size TBD, finish TBD (resin and/or marine-grade sealer) Graphic panel 31” w x 18” h Exhibit panel will be attached to existing posts using a sleeve and set screw approach BY DESIGNconservation 48 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.15 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 8Low Pro le In-Ground Exhibit Water Quantity :: LOW PROFILE IN-GROUND EXHIBIT Water Quantity A 15.1 ELEMENT 8 Low Pro le In-Ground Exhibit Water Quantity :: FINAL CONTENT Water Quantity A 15.2 Graphic panels attach to steel backplate using standoffs or other spacers to hide hardware and provide needed dimension 36”30-32”Live edge wood slab, size TBD, finish TBD (resin and/or marine- grade sealer) Graphic panel 31” w x 18” h Exhibit panel will be attached to existing posts using a sleeve and set screw approach 24”BY DESIGNconservation 49 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.16 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 9 Two-Panel Upright Exhibit/Message Board :: TWO-PANEL UPRIGHT EXHIBIT/MESSAGE BOARD Near bridge to Theatre Aspen and restroom A 16.1 ELEMENT 9 Two-Panel Upright Exhibit/Message Board :: FINAL CONTENT Two-Panel Upright Exhibit/Message Board A 16.2 Locking bulletin case mounted to mesh OR channel to slide changeable panel in/out (both approaches need stand-offs)78”30”36”24” graphic panel 2”x2” steel frame with mesh Powder coated graphics, mounted to steel mesh using stand-offs BY DESIGNconservation 50 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.17 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 11 Mobile App :: HOME PAGEA 17.1 ELEMENT 11 Mobile App :: FIND OVERVIEWA 17.2 :: JOHN DENVER SANCTUARYA 17.3 :: THEATRE ASPENA 17.4 BY DESIGNconservation 51 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.18 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 11 Mobile App ELEMENT 11 Mobile App :: FIND OVERVIEWA 18.1 :: RIO GRANDE TRAILA 18.2 :: SKATE PARKA 18.3 :: RIO GRANDE FIELDA 18.4 BY DESIGNconservation 52 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.19 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 11 Mobile App ELEMENT 11 Mobile App :: FIND OVERVIEWA 19.1 :: STREAM GAUGEA 19.2 :: UNDERGROUND VAULTA 19.3 :: RESTROOMA 19.4 BY DESIGNconservation 53 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.20 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 11 Mobile App ELEMENT 11 Mobile App :: FIND OVERVIEWA 20.1 :: QUOTE FINDERA 20.2 BY DESIGNconservation 54 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.21 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 11 Mobile App ELEMENT 11 Mobile App :: DISCOVER OVERVIEWA 21.1 :: HISTORIC HUB A 21.2 :: RAILROADS RACEDA 21.3 :: MINING LAID FOUNDATIONA 21.4 BY DESIGNconservation 55 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.22 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 11 Mobile App ELEMENT 11 Mobile App :: DISCOVER OVERVIEWA 22.1 :: MINING’S EFFECTSA 22.2 :: SKI TRAINA 22.3 :: TINY CREATURESA 22.4 BY DESIGNconservation 56 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.23 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 11 Mobile App ELEMENT 11 Mobile App :: DISCOVER OVERVIEWA 23.1 :: WATER QUALITYA 23.2 :: TREATING STORMWATERA 23.3 :: JOHN DENVERA 23.4 BY DESIGNconservation 57 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.24 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 11 Mobile App ELEMENT 11 Mobile App :: DISCOVER OVERVIEWA 24.1 :: CALYPSOA 24.2 :: LIVE IN THE USSRA 24.3 :: ETHICS IN ACTIONA 24.4 BY DESIGNconservation 58 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.25 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 11 Mobile App ELEMENT 11 Mobile App :: DISCOVER OVERVIEWA 25.1 :: REMEMBERING A 25.2 BY DESIGNconservation 59 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.26 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 11 Mobile App ELEMENT 11 Mobile App :: ACT OVERVIEWA 26.1 :: WATER CONSERVATIONA 26.2 :: ALT TRANSPORTATIONA 26.3 :: ENERGY CONSCIOUSA 26.4 BY DESIGNconservation 60 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.27 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 11 Mobile App ELEMENT 11 Mobile App :: ACT OVERVIEWA 27.1 :: BOTTLED WATERA 27.2 :: PLASTICSA 27.3 :: WILDLIFE HABITATA 27.4 BY DESIGNconservation 61 1035 W Geneva Woods Court Presco , AZ 86305 conservationbydesign.com PROJECT MANAGER Melanie Pierson o 928/776-0447 m 575/313-2203 melanie@conservationbydesign.com A0.28 CLIENT City of Aspen Mike Tunte michael.tunte@cityofaspen.com PROJECT Rio Grande Park & John Denver Sanctuary Interpretive Exhibits DRAWN BY MP SUBMITTED 09.28.21 DESCRIPTION Element 11 Mobile App ELEMENT 11 Mobile App :: ACT OVERVIEWA 28.1 :: DON’T IDLEA 28.2 :: SUPPORT LOCAL NON-PROFITSA 28.3 BY DESIGNconservation 62 78777 8 7 5 7 8 7 3 787178727870786578607863786078557852786578637870787378747875787778797877787678727875786978707870787578737871787778757870788078757887788578707865788078817885786078577892789078907892XFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXELXIRR XIRRXIRR XIRRXIRRXIRRXIRRXIRRXIRR XIRR XIRR XIRR8''WL 8''WL 8''WL 8''WL 8''WL 8''WL 8''WL XSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSA XSA XSA XFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFO XFO XFO XFO XFO XFO XFO XFO XFO XFO XFO XFO XFOXFO XFO XFO XFO XSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXSDXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFOXFO15'' ST15'' ST15'' ST15'' ST15'' ST8'' ST8'' ST8'' ST8'' STXSD XSDXSDXSD XSD 40100205SCALE: 1"= 20'-0"JOHN DENVER/ RIO GRANDE ENTRY I CONCEPT STUDIESN63 Date:  Department:  Amount Requested:  Expense Account Number:  Project / Task Number:  Permit Number: Permit Address:  Description:  Requested By:  Received By:  Community Development Department INTERNAL FUNDS TRANSFER 64 Page | 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Kevin Rayes, Planner II THRU: Amy Simon, Planning Director MEMO DATE: January 27, 2022 MEETING DATE: February 1, 2022 RE: 108 Neal Avenue | Herron Park | Stream Margin Review and Special Review to Establish an Alternative Top of Slope, PUBLIC HEARING Applicant: City of Aspen Parks Department, Matt Kuhn, Parks Director Representative: Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services Inc. Location: 108 Neale Avenue Herron Park Current Zoning Park (P) Summary: The applicant plans to replace existing temporary restrooms at Herron Park with a permanent public restroom structure. The application requests Stream Margin Review and Special Review to establish an alternative Top -of-Slope, and to memorialize a building envelope that accommodates the restroom facilities. The applicant also requests to establish a second building envelope that encompasses existing playground equipment. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission approve Stream Margin Review and Special Review to memorialize the proposed Top-of-Slope. Staff also recommends P&Z approve the development of a permanent restroom facility. Staff recommends that P&Z deny the request to memorialize building envelopes on the property. Figure 1: Herron Park Location Figure 2: Herron Park as Viewed from Neale Ave. 65 Page | 2 REQUEST OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: The applicant is requesting the following land use approval: • Special Review (Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.040.E): An application requesting an appeal of the Stream Margin Map’s top of slope determination requires Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review body. • Stream Margin Review (Chapter 26.435.40): An application for development on a property within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high-water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the Flood Hazard Area requires a Stream Margin Review. Development in these areas is subject to heightened review because they are in an Environmentally Sensitive Area. The Planning and Zoning Commission is the final review body. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: Herron Park is owned and maintained by the City of Aspen Parks Department and located within the Park (P) zone district. The property is approximately 2.45 acres and contains various improvements, including children’s playground equipment, benches/picnic tables, a bike rack, trash receptacles and a segment of the Rio Grande Trail. The following figures depict the improvements located throughout the park. Figure 3: Herron Park A B C 66 Page | 3 A Figure 3A: Existing Playground B Figure 3B: Rio Grande Trail and Surrounding Improvements C Figure 3C: Rio Grande Trail, Trash and Restroom Facilities 67 Page | 4 Given its proximity to the Roaring Fork River, a large portion of the park is located within the Stream Margin Review area, which is considered environmentally sensitive and requires heightened review for development. The City maintains a set of maps depicting properties that are located within the Stream Margin Review Area. From these maps, the Top-of-Slope of each property is identified based on the location of the 100-foot-high water line of the river. The Land Use Code prohibits development (other than approved native vegetation planting) below the Top- of-Slope or within fifteen feet of the Top-of-Slope or the high-water line, whichever is most restrictive. This is intended to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. As depicted in Figure 4, the Top-of-Slope represented in the City of Aspen maps is well above Herron Park. Based on this map, no development would be permitted to occur below this line. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.040.e, Stream Margin Review- Special Review, the application requests Special Review to establish an alternative Top-of-Slope that may be more commensurate to the topography and grade change of Herron Park. This request is intended to clarify where development and improvements may be located within the park in the following two locations: 1. Playground Area A playground has been located on this property for many years. When the equipment was recently determined to have reached its lifespan and become out of compliance with current safety codes, the Parks Department proposed replacement. As an existing facility, the land use code allowed for the playground equipment depicted in Figure 3-A to be granted administrative approval for Stream Margin Review by the Community Development Department in the Fall of 2021 (Exhibit B). Construction was completed shortly thereafter. This equipment is located only a few feet from the Roaring Fork River and required a “No-Rise Certification” by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) before construction was allowed to commence. This application requests to establish a building envelope surrounding the equipment to clarify where development may occur in the future. 2. Restroom Area The applicant plans to remove the existing temporary restroom located on the right side of Figure 3-C and replace it with a more permanent structure. The application seeks to establish a building envelope around the restroom as depicted in Figure 4. A photo of the proposed bathroom structure is shown in Figure 5. Proposed Building Envelopes Restroom Area Top-of-Slope per City of Aspen Stream Margin Maps Figure 4: Existing Top-of-Slope & Proposed Building Envelopes Figure 5: Proposed Prefabricated Restroom 68 Page | 5 DISCUSSION & STAFF FINDINGS As mentioned on the previous page, much of the park is located within the Stream Margin Review Area and any development or improvements that take place are subject to heightened review. The impetus for this application originated when the Community Development Department and the Parks Department sought a path to clarify where development and improvements may be located within the park. Community Development staff requested that Parks apply to establish an alternative Top-of-Slope and to establish building envelopes that would surround existing development to provide clarity where future development could occur. The Engineering Department worked with the applicant to determine an appropriate location for an alternative Top of Slope. Staff supports the revised location of the alternative Top-of-Slope. Based on this location, staff also supports the request to replace the existing restroom facility with a more permanent structure. However, after reviewing the location of the 100-year floodplain as depicted in the Figure 6, staff no longer supports the concept of memorializing building envelopes on the property. The purpose of building envelopes is to clarify the locations where development may occur. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.040.c, development should not occur below, or within fifteen feet setback uphill from the Top-of-Slope. While the proposed location of Building Envelope “A” meets the setback requirements, portions of Building Envelope “B” do not. Additionally, it is important to add that FEMA has identified two potential flood zones within the park, known as Floodway Zone AE and Zone X. Zone AE represents the area where water would rise and flow in a manner consistent with the adjacent river during a 100-year flood. Zone X represents the area that would be inundated by water during the same flood, but flow patterns would not occur. In other words, Zone AE is more susceptible to dangerous flood patterns than Zone X, but both zones are at risk of future flooding. As depicted in Figure 6, the proposed location of Building Envelope “B” is located within Flood Zone AE. While replacement of the long-established playground was recently approved and constructed in this area, a “No-Rise Certification” from FEMA confirmed the improvements would not increase flood heights. The scope of work was also subject to administrative Stream Margin Review before construction was allowed to commence. Both reviews would be triggered for any future development in this area. Findings from the reviews could impact the scope of work that may occur. Similarly, the proposed location for the restroom facility and Building Envelope “A” are also located within the 100-year floodplain, albeit in a slightly less vulnerable area. While staff believes it is appropriate to allow for the development of a permanent bathroom facility in this location (after a No-Rise Certification is obtained), staff does not support memorializing a building envelope. Establishing Building Envelopes “A” or “B” could lead to a conflicting and ambiguous outcome if Stream Margin Review or a No-Rise Certificate determine that a project needs to be altered to accommodate the sensitive area. Staff finds that simply recording the location of the alternative Top-of-Slope will provide sufficient clarity for future projects within the park. 69 Page | 6 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Stream Margin Review and Special Review to memorialize an alternative Top-of-Slope, however the full extent of the Top of Slope boundary must be depicted on the plat before recordation. Staff also recommends approval to construct a permanent restroom facility upon receipt of a No-Rise Certification. Staff recommends denial of the request to memorialize a Building Envelopes “A” or “B”. A plat documenting this approval must be submitted for review and recordation within 180 days, pursuant to land use code Section 26.490. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution #05, Series of 2022 for Stream Margin Review and Special Review to memorialize the alternative Top-of-Slope, and to approve the development of a permanent restroom facility subject to the conditions listed in the resolution. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A.1 | Stream Margin Review Staff Findings Exhibit A.2 | Special Review Staff Findings Exhibit B | Stream Margin Review Administrative Notice of Approval Exhibit C | Application FEMA Zone X Building Envelope, A (proposed) Proposed bathroom location Zone AE (Floodway) Building Envelope, B (Proposed) Current Top of Slope Alternative Top of Slope (Proposed) Figure 6: Current/Proposed Top of Slope, FEMA Flood Zones and Proposed Building Envelopes 70 Page 1 of 4 RESOLUTION # 05 (SERIES OF 2022) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING SPECIAL REVIEW FOR AN ALTERNATIVE TOP OF SLOPE DETERMINATION AND A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 108 NEALE AVENUE, ASPEN CO 81611, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10, RANGE 84, HERRON PARK TRACT OF LAND IN SEC. 7-10-84; COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-073-00-860 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen Parks Department, Matt Kuhn, Parks Director, requesting Special Review approval for an alternative Top-of-Slope Determination and Stream Margin Review, for the property at 108 Neale Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Department Staff reviewed the application for compliance with the applicable review standards; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Engineering Department provided consultation to the applicant and approved the proposed alternative Top-of-Slope; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable Land Use Code standards, the Community Development Director recommended approval of the Special Review for an alternative Top-of-Slope and Stream Margin Review; and, WHEREAS, the City of 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 on February 1, 2022; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets the applicable review criteria and that the approval of the request is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Code; and, 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; and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution #05, Series of 2022, by a X to X (X-X) vote, granting approval of Special Review and Stream Margin Review. 71 P&Z Resolution #05, Series of 2021 Page 2 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission: Section 1: Special Review for Top-of-Slope Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves an alternative Top-of-Slope determination via Special Review as identified in the attached Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.090, Documents and Deadlines, a plat shall be submitted to the Community Development Department within one hundred eighty (180) days following the date of this resolution. The plat shall be subject to review and approval by City Staff to ensure P&Z intent. 2. The plat shall depict the Top-of-Slope as it extends across the property. The Top-of-Slope shall follow the 7,892 contour beyond what is depicted in Exhibit A. Section 2: Stream Margin Review Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves Stream Margin Review to develop a permanent restroom facility, subject to the following conditions: 1. A No-Rise Certification shall be obtained prior to building permit. 2. Lighting associated with the facility shall meet the provisions of Title 26 of the land use code. A lighting plan shall be submitted at the time of building permit. 3. Representations showing the 45-degree height limit is met shall be submitted at the time of building permit. Section 3: A plat documenting this approval must be submitted for review and recordation within 180 days, pursuant to land use code Section 26.490. Section 4: This approval does not exempt the project from compliance with applicable zoning, building, or any other applicable code regulations within the City of Aspen’s Municipal Code. The applicant must submit a building permit application demonstrating compliance with all applicable codes prior to any development on site. 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 site development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. 72 P&Z Resolution #05, Series of 2021 Page 3 of 4 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 Commission at its meeting on February 1, 2022. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: ____________________________ ______________________________ Katharine Johnson, Assistant City Attorney Teraissa McGovern, Chair ATTEST: ____________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager 73 Exhibit A | Approved Alternative Top-of-Slope P&Z Resolution #05, Series of 2021 Page 4 of 4 Zone AE (Floodway) Zone X Approved Top-of Slope 74 Exhibit A.1 Stream Margin Review Standards Staff Findings Page 1 of 4 26.435.040.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 . Staff findings: The floodway of the Roaring Fork River (Zone AE ) and Zone X are depicted on the Site Improvement plat. These areas represent the 100 -year floodplain, based on maps prepared by FEMA. Zone AE represents the area where water would rise and flow in a manner consistent with the adjacent river during a 100-year flood. Zone X represents the area that would be inundated by water during the same flood, but flow patterns would not occur. In other words, Zone AE is more susceptible to dangerous flood patterns than Zone X, but both zones remain vulnerable to flooding. After the opportunity to review the location of the 100-year floodplain relative to the proposed locations of Building Envelopes “A” and “B”, staff does not support memorializing building envelopes in the park. Future development in these areas would continue to require Stream Margin Review and a No-Rise Certification. The findings from those reviews have the potential to contradict the delineation established by a building envelope and lead to an ambiguous outcome. Staff recommends that P&Z deny the request to establish building envelopes. Staff does support approval of Stream Margin Review to develop a permanent restroom facility subject to the requirement that a No-Rise Certificate be obtained prior to building permit. Staff also supports memorializing the proposed alternative Top-of-Slope. Staff finds that this criterion is met to develop a permanent restroom facility and to memorialize the proposed alternative Top-of-Slope. This criterion is not met for the request to establish Building Envelopes “A” or “B”. 2. The adopted regulatory plans of the Open Space and Trails Board 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 findings: The impetus of this request originated from plans associated with the Open Space and Trails Board of the City of Aspen Parks Department. Approving permanent restroom facilities is consistent with these plans. The Park is heavily used, public facilities are needed, and they should be provided in a safe and environmentally appropriate manner to reduce risk of stream contamination . Memorializing an alternative Top-of-Slope is also 75 Exhibit A.1 Stream Margin Review Standards Staff Findings Page 2 of 4 consistent with the Open Space and Trails Plan as it will provide clarity for future improvements that may be developed within this park. 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 en velope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to [Land Use Code Section26.435.040.f.1. Staff findings: The work associated with developing a restroom will not impact any stream bank vegetation or make any grade changes along the stream bank. Staff finds that this criterion is met to develop a permanent restroom facility. 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. Staff findings: The proposed restroom facility will com ply with the City’s adopted stormwater management standards. This will ensure that on -site drainage is accommodated on -site and does not cause water pollution or other impacts on the Roaring Fork River. Staff finds 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 findings: Alteration to the water course is no t proposed within this application. The proposed restroom facility is located a sufficient distance from the Roaring Fork River that no water course will be impacted by the development. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 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 findings: Alteration to the water course is not proposed as part of this application. Staff finds this criterion not applicable. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100-year flood plain. Staff findings: The proposed location of the bathroom facili ty is located within the 100 -year floodplain. Pending approval of Stream Margin review for the restroom, a No -Rise Certification will be required prior to building permit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 76 Exhibit A.1 Stream Margin Review Standards Staff Findings Page 3 of 4 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 ripar ian 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 wi th 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 findings: Pending approval of Special Review to establish an alternative Top -of-Slope, it will be clear where development will no longer be permitted in the future. Memorializing this delineation will help ensure that future projects remain setback at lea st 15-ft. from the Top-of-Slope. 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 [Land Use Code Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"]. Staff findings: The proposed restroom facility will be setback more than 140 -ft. from the top of slope. The structure will not exceed 16-ft. in height. A condition of approval is included in the resolution that requires representations t o show the 45-dgree height limit is met at the time of building permit. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 77 Exhibit A.1 Stream Margin Review Standards Staff Findings Page 4 of 4 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 [Land Use Code Section 26.575.150]. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications . Staff findings: A condition of approval is included in the resolution that requires a lighting plan to be submitted at the time of building permit (if lighting is proposed). The lighting plan shall meet the provisions of Title 26 of the land use code . Staff finds this criterion to be met. 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Staff findings: Based on the expertise and findings from the Engineering Department, the Top-of-Slope helps to delineate the location of wetlands and riparian zones. The proposed location of the bathroom will not impact these areas. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 78 Exhibit A.2 Special Review Standards Staff Findings Page 1 of 1 26.435.040.E, Special 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: An application requesting a v ariance 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. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A Special Review from the stream margin review determination may be ap proved, 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 regard 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 . Staff findings: The Stream Margin Improvement Plat prepared by Sopris Engineering depicts the same Top-of-Slope as represented on the City of Aspen Stream Margin Review maps . Staff finds that the Top-of-Slope determined by the City is not commensurate to the topography and grade change within Herron Park. The purpose of the Top-of-Slope setback is to “protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability.” This language suggests that the Top -of-Slope should be located relatively close to the Roaring Fork River, where riparian habitat exists. The alternative Top -of-Slope proposed by Engineering is more consistent with existing conditions. Staff finds this criterion to be met, with the condition that the full extent of the Top of Slope is depicted on the recorded plat. 2. The proposed development meets the Stream Margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. Staff findings: This land use application complies with the applicable Stream Margin Review standards. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 3.3"x7'4.2"x9'3.3"x8'3.3"x8'13.7"x22'3"x7'2.8"x6'43.2"x60'16.4"x30'13.75"x20'7"x15'12.5"x21'19.5"x35'16.7"x30'20.5"x38'22.4"x40'10.8"x20'20.6"x38'20.6"x38'15.3"x25'20.2"x32'20.2"x37'10.2"x20'21.2"x39'21.3"x40'22"x40'14.5"x27'14.7"x28'8.6"x17'7.1"x14'10"x20'8.1"x15'21.4"x40'6.8"x13'16.6"x31'25"x43'9.8"x20'13.3"x22'13.1"x22'12.3"x'12.2"x20'11.9"x21'6.2"x12'17.3"x34'17.8"x35'15.2"x30'16"x33'31.4"x40'7.5"x14'13.4"x24'6.8"x12'14.3"x28'15"x30'14"x25'8.5"x16'12.7"x22'14.8"x20'10.7"x20'7.4"x14'6"x12'6.9"x13'13.1"x20'22.5"x30'12.6"x21'16.1"x32'3.2"x10'xxxxxxxxxxx4-5.5"x10'7894789378957896789778987899 789978927891788978907888ZONE AE (FLOODWAY)ZONE AE ZONE X (0.2%)ZONE AEZONE X (OUTSIDE 0.2%)ZONE X (0.2%)PLAYGROUND(BASIS O F B E A R I N G S ) N 1 4 ° 1 8 ' 5 4 " E 1 2 8 . 2 8 'LOT 2114NEALE/17 QUEENHISTORIC LOT SPLIT17 QUEEN STREET(POSITION NOT FIELDVERIFIED)NE A L E A V ENU E PU B L IC R IGH T -O F -WA YROARING FORK RIVERHERRON PARK PLACECONDOMINIUMSBK.49 PG.84(TO GPS-5 TIE ONLY) S88° 32' 00"W 1382.15'EDGE OF WATER1998-1999 FIELD SURVEYROARING FORK RIVER78 9 7 7898789678 9 5 7894789378927891 7890 7889 789678957894EDGE OFASPHALT (TYP)78 9 5 7 8 9 4 78 9 3 7 8 9 27891 7 8 8 3 7 8 8 4 7 8 8 67885 78877 8 8 8 78 9 0 7900790579027901790078997899790079017902 790379047905790679077908790979107911791279137914791579167917791879197920792179227923792479257926792779257920791579057910791979157914791379127911791079097908790779067892789378917892789378947895 788 8 788 9 7890 7885788778 8 8 789078907891788978927890 7889788878877886788578847883 7891 7892 7893 7894 789 4 78957896 7 8 9 7 789 8 7 8 9 9 79 0 0 7 9 0 1 79 0 2 79 0 3 79 0 4 7905 CURRENT TOP OF BANK PER CITY OF ASPENPLANNING REVIEW MAP DETERMINED FROMUPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM FIELD SHOTTOP OF BANK LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONSAND INTERPOLATING TOP BANK LINE WITHGIS CONTOURING.SEE SURVEY NOTE 12HERRON PARKCITY OF ASPENCITY OF ASPEN APPROVEDTOP OF SLOPEPER THIS STREAM MARGINREVIEW/SITE PLANEoe o e oeoeoeoeoeT TPATHENTRY STAIRSRIO GRANDETRAILBUILDING ENVELOPE BPER THIS STREAMMARGIN REVIEW/SITEPLAN15.00'BRIDGEBRIDGEFOUND #5 REBAR AND1.25" CAP L.S. #20133FOUND #5 REBAR AND1.25" CAP L.S. #2376FOUND #5 REBAR AND1.25" CAP L.S. #2376FOUND #5 REBAR AND1.25" CAP ILLEGIBLEPROPOSEDRESTROOMFOOTPRINTBUILDING ENVELOPE APER THIS STREAM MARGINREVIEW/SITE PLANNOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGALACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARSAFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTIONBASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TENYEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON.SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLCCIVIL CONSULTANTS502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623(970) 704-0311 SOPRISENG@SOPRISENG.COM 1/3/2022 - 31015.01 - G:\2021\31015-HerronPark\SURVEY\Survey DWGs\Survey Plots\31015_STREAMREVIEW.dwgGENERAL UTILITY NOTES:The locations of underground utilities have been plotted based on utility maps,construction/design plans, other information provided by utility companies and actualfield locations in some instances. These utilities, as shown, may not represent actualfield conditions. It is the responsibility of the contractor to contact all utilitycompanies for field location of utilities prior to construction.STREAM MARGIN SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAT OF:HERRON PARK, CITY OF ASPEN PARKS AND OPEN SPACELOCATED IN SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 6th P.M., CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO.SHEET 1 OF 1EXISTING TREE LEGENDINDICATES PINE TREEINDICATES A DECIDOUS TREEEXISTING FIRE HYDRANTEXISTING WATER VALVEEXISTING TELEPHONE PEDESTAL EXISTING LIGHT POLEEXISTING GUY ANCHORUTILITY LEGENDSURVEY NOTES1)DATE OF FIELD WORK: MAY-JULY 2016; FEBRUARY 2021; SITE VISIT DECEMBER 20212)DATE OF PREPARATION: DECEMBER 2021 - JANUARY 20223)LINEAR UNITS: THE LINEAR UNIT USED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS PLAT IS THE U.S.SURVEY FOOT AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONALINSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY.4)BASIS OF BEARINGS: BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE 2009 MARCIN ENGINEERING-CITY OFASPEN CONTROL MAP, WHICH ESTABLISHED A PROJECT BEARING BASE OF N.14°18'54"E.ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF HERRON PARK CONDOMINIUMS, AS SHOWNHEREON.5)THIS SURVEY MAP IS A COMPILATION OF CURRENT AND PREVIOUS SURVEY DATA AND ISCONSIDERED CURRENT INSOFAR AS THE FIELD DATA SHOWN (PARTIAL FIELD SURVEY). THISSURVEY MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED INANY WAY AS A BOUNDARY SURVEY.6) THIS SURVEY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A TITLE SEARCH BY SOPRIS ENGINEERING, LLC (SE) TODETERMINE OWNERSHIP OR EASEMENTS OF RECORD. NO TITLE COMMITMENT WAS USEDIN THE PREPARATION OF THIS SURVEY.7) PARCEL DESCRIPTION: PITKIN COUNTY PARCEL NO. 2737073008608)BASIS OF ELEVATION: THE 1998 CITY OF ASPEN DREXEL BARREL CONTROL DATUM, WHICH ISBASED ON AN ELEVATION OF 7720.88' (NAVD 1988) ON THE NGS STATION "S-159".9)CONTOUR INTERVAL: ONE (1) FOOT. CONTOURS SHOWN WERE PROVIDED BY THE CITY OFASPEN GIS DEPARTMENT, BASED ON AERIAL WORK PERFORMED IN 2020.10)THE FLOOD ZONES SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENTAGENCY FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) NUMBER 08097CO354E MAP REVISEDAUGUST 15, 2019. PLEASE REFER TO THE FIRM FOR FLOOD ZONE DEFINITIONS.11) PARKING, SIDEWALKS, STORM FEATURES STAIRS AND STRIPING ON THE NORTHWEST SIDEOF NEALE AVE. ARE FROM 2014 JR ENGINEERING DESIGN DRAWINGS, VERIFIED IN THEFIELD (NOT FIELD SURVEYED). NEW PLAYGROUND, PATH AND ENTRY STAIRS FROM DESIGNDRAWINGS PROVIDED BY CITY OF ASPEN PARKS (NOT FIELD SURVEYED).12) THE CURRENT TOP OF BANK IS SHOWN HEREON, AS SHOWN ON THE PLANNING REVIEWMAP OF ROARING FORK RIVER CROSS SECTIONS/STREAM MARGIN REVIEW LINE PREPAREDBY SOPRIS ENGINEERING LLC FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN DATED APRIL 9, 2001 AND UPDATEDFEBRUARY 26, 2002AREA OF FLOODWAY AREA IN ZONE AE PERFIRM REFERENCED IN SURVEY NOTE 10PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONPARCEL NO. 273707300860HERRON PARK AND A PORTION OF THE NEALE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE CITY OF ASPEN,COLORADOCONTAINING 2.44 ACRES± ACCORDING TO PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICEDRAFTSURVEYOR'S STATEMENTI, MARK S. BECKLER, DO HEREBY STATE THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY SOPRISENGINEERING, LLC FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARKS DEPARTMENT ANDTHAT IT IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.__________________________MARK S. BECKLER L.S. NO. 28643102 4,514 752.3 Legend 1: WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Feet0752.3376.17 Notes Herron Park Vicinity Map THIS MAP IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. Pitkin County GIS makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the completeness, accuracy, or reliability of the content represented. Map Created on 2:48 PM 01/03/22 at http://www.pitkinmapsandmore.com State Highway Road Centerline 4K Primary Road Secondary Road Service Road Rivers and Creeks Continuous Intermittent River, Lake or Pond Town Boundary Federal Land Boundary BLM State of Colorado USFS 103