Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.20150421 AGENDA Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission REGULAR MEETING April 21, 2015 4:30 PM Sister Cities Room 130 S Galena St, Aspen I. SITE VISIT II. ROLL CALL III. COMMENTS A. Commissioners B. Planning Staff C. Public IV. MINUTES V. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 69 Shady Lane - Special Review for Variances from Stream Margin Review (continued from 4/7/15) B. 300 and 312 E. Hyman: Subdivision Recommendation to Merge Lots - Public Hearing VII. OTHER BUSINESS VIII. BOARD REPORTS IX. ADJOURN Next Resolution Number: 7 Typical Proceeding Format for All Public Hearings 1) Conflicts of Interest (handled at beginning of agenda) 2) Provide proof of legal notice (affi d avit of notice for PH) 3) Staff presentation 4) Board questions and clarifications of staff 5) Applicant presentation 6) Board questions and clari fications of ap plicant 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 1 1 ) 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 o r not met. Revised April 2, 2014 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planning Technician THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director MEETING DATE: April 21, 2015 RE: 69 Shady Lane – Special Review, Resolution No.__, Series 2015 APPLICANT /O WNER : Mustang Holdings II REPRESENTATIVE : Janet Leverson, Galambos Architects, Inc. LOCATION : 69 Shady Lane, PID # 2737-073-000- 12 CURRENT ZONING & USE This property is located in the Low- Density Residential (R-30) zone district with a Planned Development overlay. A single family home and accessory dwelling unit is currently being constructed on the property. PROPOSED LAND USE : The Applicant is proposing a demolition and replacement of an existing pedestrian bridge spanning the Roaring Fork River. STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request outlined in Resolution No. __, Series 2015. Figure A: existing bridge over the Roaring Fork P1 VI.A. 2 NOTE: In a six to zero (6-0) vote, the public hearing was continued from April 7 th , 2015 to April 21 st , 2015. Since the public hearing, Staff met with John Galambos of Galambos Architecture and Yancy Nichols of Sopris Engineering to discuss Staff’s findings on the project. Sopris Engineering has provided a memo addressing Staff comments from April 7 th and providing a few changes to the application (Exhibit I). As outlined in Exhibit A and the Staff memo below (from April 7 th ) Staff finds that the application does not meet the review criteria. Staff appreciates the willingness of the applicant to amend the design to include a breakaway bridge that reduces flood hazard impacts to the Special Flood Hazard Area; however, the bridge is located outside of the established building envelope and below the established top of slope which does not meet the review criteria for Stream Margin review variances. In order to construct the bridge as proposed the building envelope and the top of slope need to be amended to include the proposed disturbance area. P&Z Resolution 13, Series of 2010, which established the building envelope for this property and is attached as Exhibit H, states the following: Section 1 (2) “All development within the development boundary shall be setback at least fifteen (15) feet from the top of slope. In addition, any development within the development boundary and within thirty (30) feet of the top of slope shall be subject to both a forty five degree (45°) progressive height limit from the top of slope and the height limitations of the zone district. Section 1 (3). “Development between the development boundary and the top of slope shall be limited to those types of development allowed within property setbacks as defined in the Land Use Code and the height limitations described above, provided such development is also consistent with floodplain and floodway restrictions.” Staff finds that review criteria 2 – 3 and 8-9 are not met as described in the staff memo and Exhibit A. Exhibit A has been updated to reflect amendments to the application. Staff will review the changes during the public hearing. Staff recommends denial of the requested variances. The following memo was provided on April 7, 2015: LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approvals from the Planning and Zoning Commission: Special Review Pursuant to Lane Use Code Section 26.435.040.E, variances to Stream Margin Review standards. This application is required to undergo Stream Margin review as the proposed bridge replacement is within the Stream Margin Review area. This heightened review has been deemed necessary by the City of Aspen in order to reduce and prevent property loss by flood and to P2 VI.A. 3 ensure the natural and unimpeded flow of the river. The applicant seeks variances from the following Stream Margin Review Standards: Section 26.435.040.C. 2-3 and 8-9 to allow for the construction of a bridge outside of the established building envelope. The Planning and Zoning Commission will determine if the proposed development meets the intent of the Stream Margin Review standards. BACKGROUND: 69 Shady Lane is zoned Low-Density Residential (R-30) with a Planned Development (PD) overlay. The nearly three acre (120,007sf) property shown in Figure B is located at the confluence the Roaring Fork River and Hunter Creek and is entirely within the Stream Margin Review Area. An existing pedestrian bridge connects the mainland portion of the property with an island in the Roaring Fork River, upstream of the confluence. Stream Margin Review applies to areas located within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or within the one-hundred-year floodplain where it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or within a Flood Hazard Area (stream margin). Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to reduce and prevent property loss by flood while ensuring the natural and unimpeded flow of watercourses. Review shall encourage development and land uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important natural features. A single family home and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is under construction in accordance with Resolution No. 13, Series 2010. The resolution approved a top of slope and building envelope for the property. A building envelope is established in Stream Margin Review to provide a designated area in which all structures and development may occur. A pedestrian bridge spans a braided channel of the Roaring Fork River, connecting the mainland portion of the lot to an island. This bridge is located just upstream of the Hunter Creek confluence. The age of the bridge is unknown; however, the bridge was in place prior to the purchase of the property by the applicant. The building permit file for the property contains no evidence of permitting for the bridge. The existing bridge is within the floodplain and within the top of slope of the river, as shown in Figure C. Erosion of the river banks is evident around the bridge and ad-hock bank reinforcement, including placement of concrete and boulders below the top of slope, shown in Figures E and F, has occurred over the years. P3 VI.A. 4 Figure B: Vicinity Map P4 VI.A. 5 Fi g u r e C , E x i s t i n g B r i d g e P l a n , n o t t o s c a l e P5 VI.A. 6 Figure D, View upstream/east towards the existing structure. The mainland is to looker’s left and the island to the right. The steel support will be cut off during bridge demolition and the concrete pad will remain to prevent further disturbance of the channel. Figure E, Looking downstream towards the structure and the island. The bank has been reinforced on the island bank, below the top of slope, just upstream of the bridge. P6 VI.A. 7 Figure F, Close-up of concrete and boulder reinforcement noted in Figure E. Figure G, Looking downstream towards existing bridge; the island is in the center of the photo and the mainland is to the right. Damming has occurred just upstream of the bridge. P7 VI.A. 8 PROJECT SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to replace the existing bridge with an arched, single-span pedestrian bridge, shown in Figures H and I. The existing bridge deck, or walking surface, is within the 100 year FEMA floodplain and modeled base flood elevation. Additionally, a single pier is within the channel of the Roaring Fork River. The proposed design of the new bridge would be an arched, single-span structure 57.5 feet in length. The base of the replacement bridge deck (walkway) would be 2.13’ above the base flood elevation at its highest point and the clearance would be reduced to zero at both banks. The existing pier would be removed at the concrete pad, shown in Figure D. The concrete pad would not be removed to prevent further disturbance. The concrete and boulder bank reinforcement placed over the years on the island side of the bank, shown in Figures E and F, would not be removed. P8 VI.A. 9 Fi g u r e H , P r o p o s e d B r i d g e P l a n , n o t t o s c a l e P9 VI.A. 10 Fi g u r e I , S i t e P l a n . E x i s t i n g B r i d g e ( G r e y ) , T o p o f s lo p e ( r e d ) , t o p o f s l o p e 1 5 ’ s e t b a c k “ n o t o u c h ” ( o r a ng e ) , p r o p o s e d r e s t o r a t i o n a r e a be l o w 1 5 ’ t o p o f s l o p e ( b l u e ) P10 VI.A. 11 Stream Margin Review, Section 26.435.040. According to section 26.435.040 Stream Margin Review of the Land Use Code, all development must be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the top of slope or the high water line, whichever is more restrictive. For this proposal, 15’ top of slope setback is the most restrictive line. The proposed bridge replacement is within the 15’ top of slope setback and within the top of slope line as shown in Figure I. There are eleven (11) review criteria associated with Stream Margin Review, and two (2) associated with Section 26.435.040.E, Special Review pursuant to Stream Margin Review. Staff findings for the aforementioned review criteria are summarized below and full responses are in Exhibit A. Additionally, the application was referred to both the Engineering and Parks Departments for review and comment. A narrative of the referral agency comments are below and full comments are in Exhibit B. Staff Comments The applicant is seeking a variance from four review criteria, 26.435.040.C.2-3 and 8 - 9 to reconstruct an existing pedestrian bridge. Criteria 2 requests a fisherman’s easement be established on the property. Criteria 3 prohibits vegetation removal or slope changes outside a building envelope. Criteria 8 does not permit development other than City-approved native vegetation planting below the top of slope or within 15’ of the top of slope. Criteria 9 does not allow for development outside the 15’ setback from the top of slope to exceed a height delineated from a line drawn at 45 degrees (also known as the progressive height restriction) as shown in the figure below. The replacement of the structure would be outside the building envelope. The review criteria states no structures are permitted beyond the building envelope. Additionally, limits of disturbance, as shown in Figure I, are beyond the established, recorded building envelope. The applicant is requesting to replace an existing bridge that is below the top of slope. The property has a designated building envelope that all improvements and disturbances. The bridge is not within the building envelope. The bridge is outside of the progressive height limit area that is intended to protect the viewshed from the Roaring Fork River. The application initially requested a variation from the review criteria standard that does not allow lighting to be directed towards the river to allow for lights to be downcast from the bridge into the Roaring Fork River. This request has since been withdrawn. A fisherman’s easement was recommended in Resolution 13, Series 2010. An easement associated with this approval has not been established nor has an easement been proposed as part of this application. The applicant does not wish to pursue a fisherman’s easement. P11 VI.A. 12 Based on the analysis provided by Sopris; the bridge would not impact the Base Flood Elevation. The proposed development is not considered to pollute nor contribute a significant amount of sediment discharge to the river. The applicant has not requested a new top of slope determination. The watercourse will not be altered as a result of the bridge replacement. A letter of notification will be provided to the Army Corps of Engineers if the bridge replacement project is approved. Staff recommends as a condition of approval the notification letter, and any applicable permits, be submitted prior to building permit approval. Referral Agency Comments Engineering Department The bridge is located within the stream margin and within the floodplain. Engineering agrees with the applicant’s analysis that the bridge will not raise the Base Flood Elevation; however, has raised concerns that the analysis was based on an equation and not an actual model of the river. Therefore, to accurately determine impacts to the Base Flood Elevation, a floodplain model based on the actual river channel would be required. Bridge replacement will impact the water course, river bank, riparian zone, and wetland areas. Construction in this area goes against the City’s stance to protect the Roaring Fork River by limiting impacts to the surrounding area. That being said, the existing bridge does not meet floodplain standards. In a 100 year storm event the bridge would most likely break apart and become debris in the flooded waterway. Debris carried in a flood event is hazardous to structures downstream. An updated bridge with an effective design will still induce flood hazards. Since the existing bridge and proposed bridge is located entirely within the stream margin, Engineering’s recommendation is to remove the existing bridge and restore the area to its natural condition. Parks Department The Parks Department supports revegetation below the top of slope and the 15’ top of slope setback area provided approved seed mix and planting guidelines are implemented with no machinery. Parks does not support the use of a backhoe or machinery in the top of slope or 15’ top of slope setback area nor use of said machinery outside the building envelope. If the project were to move forward, Parks would like to see a breakaway bridge that is anchored on one side to allow for peak flows without washing downstream. The Parks department recently constructed a public bridge on Hunter Creek with this design feature. Additionally, Parks is concerned with further degradation of the riverbanks. Summary The proposed project does not meet the following review criteria of Section 26.435.040.C., Stream Margin Review Criteria: 2, 3, 8, and 9. Additionally, the project does not meet the intent of Sections 26.435.040.C.8 and 9 which the applicant seeks variances from to allow for construction of a new bridge. The project is also lacks support from the Engineering Department because it is located within the stream margin and the floodplain. Parks supports a revegetation plan subject to City approval. P12 VI.A. 13 Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the Applicant’s request for a variance from the Stream Margin Review Criteria. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Department staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the request for variance from Stream Margin Review. RECOMMENDED MOTION: If the Planning and Zoning Commission chooses to recommend denial for the request, they may use this motion “I move to make a recommendation to deny the requests for variation from Stream Margin Review at 69 Shady Lane.” ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Stream Margin – Review Criteria Exhibit B – Referral Agency Comments Exhibit C – Application Exhibit D – Supplemental Letter (s) Exhibit E - Revised Existing and Proposed Bridge Drawings Exhibit F – Recorded Plat Exhibit G – Public Notice Exhibit H - Resolution No. 13, Series 2010 Exhibit I - Sopris Engineering Memo, April 15, 2015 P13 VI.A. Page 1 of 2 P&Z Resolution No. __ (2015) RESOLUTION N0. __ (SERIES OF 2015) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENYING STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AT THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 69 SHADY LANE, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-073-000-12 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Mustang Holdings II, represented by Galambos Architects, a request for a Special Review from variances from Stream Margin Review at 69 Shady Lane; and WHEREAS, the subject property established a building envelope in Planning and Zoning Commission Resolution 13, Series 2010; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requests approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission for to allow for the replacement of an existing pedestrian bridge over the Roaring Fork River located outside the building envelope; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 69 Shady Lane and is currently zoned Low-Density Residential (R-30); and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 7 th , 2015 and was continued to April 21 st , 2015 in a six to zero (6-0) vote; WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department found that the review criteria included in Exhibits A of the Staff memo are not met and recommended denial of the project; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Stream Margin Review The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the Stream Margin review criteria are not met, specifically review criteria 26.435.040.C.1 – C.3 and 26.435.040.C.8 – C.9, and therefore deny the requested variances from the Stream Margin Review Criteria; and Section 2: 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. P14 VI.A. Page 2 of 2 P&Z Resolution No. __ (2015) DENIED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 21 st day of April, 2015. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: __________________________ ______________________________ Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney Ryan Walterscheid, Chair ATTEST: _______________________________ Cindy Klob, Records Manager P15 VI.A. Sec. 26.435.040. Stream margin review. E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or an appeal of the Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; and The applicant is using the top of slope established in Resolution No. 13, Series 2010 and recorded at Reception No. 573126. The top of slope is shown in the exhibits provided by the applicant. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. The proposed development does not meet the following review criteria of Section 26.435.040.C., Stream Margin Review Criteria: 2, 3, 8, and 9. Staff finds this criterion not met as noted below. C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream margin of the Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and A flood hazard report was prepared by Sopris Engineering analyzing the impacts of the existing and proposed pedestrian bridges on the 100 year FEMA floodplain. The existing bridge is within the 100 year FEMA floodplain. The proposed bridge would be 2.13’ above the 100 year floodplain at its highest point; however, either end of the bridge is within the floodplain. The base flood elevation for the existing bridge was not included in P16 VI.A. the 1985 FEMA flood insurance study. Because the data is 29 years old, an updated study was conducted in 2014. The food analysis did not include the existing bridge. The Engineering Department commented the analysis provided is not based on an equation and not a model of the Roaring Fork River channel. While the analysis provided shows no change in the Base Flood Elevation, a model would more accurately reflect river conditions and impacts to the Base Flood Elevation. Engineering is also concerned with debris flow during a flood event. Additionally, the existing bridge would likely break apart in a 100 year flood event and the resulting debris would create hazards to structures downstream. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and Resolution 13, Series 2010 approved a Special Review for a Stream Margin Review to redevelop the lot at 69 Shady Lane. Section 3 of the Resolution included a condition that encouraged the applicant to provide a Fisherman’s’ Easement along the watercourses within this property. At this time, an Easement for the 2010 approval has not been established. An easement has not been proposed as a part of this application . A fisherman’s easement cannot be required as a condition of approval. Staff finds this criterion not met. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F.1; and The building envelope for the subject property was established by Resolution 13, Series 2010. The building envelope was recorded on August 30, 2010, Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, Reception No. 573126 (Exhibit H). The recorded building envelope does not include the area where proposed bridge is located. The applicant is not proposing a building envelope amendment to include the structure, the revegetation area, nor the proposed riparian restoration area. The project proposes removal of the existing bridge and construction of a replacement bridge outside the building envelope. Additionally, the limits of disturbance, as shown in Figure I of the Staff Memo; are outside the building envelope. Staff finds this criterion not met. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and P17 VI.A. Demolition of the bridge will result in a small amount of sediment discharge to the river. Best management practices will be included in the construction management plan (CMP) to reduce sediment discharge and erosion impacts during construction. The CMP will be approved by the Engineering and Parks Department prior to building permit approval. No pools or hot tubs are proposed. Staff finds this criterion 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; and No alternation of the watercourse is proposed; therefore written notice to the Colorado Water Conservation Board and copies to the Federal Emergency Management Agency are not required. Staff finds this criterion met. 5. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and The construction management plan proposes using a crane to construct the bridge and the bridge replacement will not alter nor relocate the Roaring Fork River. Staff finds this criterion met. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100-year flood plain; and The applicant represents that the project will not impact any non-jurisdictional wetlands or waters nor any jurisdictional Wetlands or Waters of the US. The applicant states that Beach Resource Management will provide a letter of notification to the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Sacramento District, Grand Junction Field Office, prior to initiating any work over the Roaring Fork River. Staff recommends a condition of approval that t he applicant provide copies of the Corps notification letter, and any applicable permits, prior to building permit approval. Staff finds this criterion met. 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and The application requests to replace an existing bridge that is below the top of slope and replace it with a bridge within the top of slope. This property has a designated building P18 VI.A. envelope to contain disturbances – the bridge is located outside of the defined envelope. Staff finds this criterion not met. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and The proposed bridge development is within the top of slope. The progressive height restriction applies to development that is beyond the 15’ setback because the Code does not allow for development within the top of slope nor the 15’ setback. The applicant did not provide a bridge profile depicting the 45 degree progressive height limit because the bridge is not within this height-restricted area. The intent of this criterion is to reduce visual impacts from the river and the proposed bridge will be fully visible to those recreating on the river. Staff finds this criterion not met. 10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; and The applicant had proposed downcast lighting into the river; however, due to lack of support from the Engineering, Parks and the Community Development Department(s); this variation request has been withdrawn. Staff finds this criterion met. 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. The applicant has provided a wetland delineation report and identified wetlands in Exhibit C and E. A riparian restoration area has been identified in Exhibit C and is highlighted in the Staff Memo. Staff finds this criterion met. P19 VI.A. Engineering Department Comments, April 16, 2015 Engineering agrees the analysis shows there would be no increase in the Base Flood Elevation. However, the analysis they provided is basic and based off an equation. Providing a model such as a HEC-RAS model would better show the base flood elevation for historic and proposed conditions. A model would take into account more factors and parameters to match the river system. To get an accurate model a significant stretch of the river would need to be incorporated into the model, it could not be done with just the cross section at the bridge. But this is something we could require to more accurately prove there is no increase to the BFE. The simplified analysis shows there is no rise in elevation, but a model would need to be created to get a more accurate idea of what would happen. The Engineering Department is concerned about the flood elevation but in the instance of a bridge we are more concerned about debris flow in a flood event. P20 VI.A. Memorandum From: Hailey Guglielmo, EIT Civil Engineer I City of Aspen Engineering Department To: Hillary Seminick Planner Technician Community Development Department City of Aspen Date: March 30, 2015 RE: 69 Shady Lane The bridge is located within the stream margin and within the floodplain. Bridge replacement will impact the water course, river bank, riparian zone, and wetland areas. Construction in this area goes against the City’s stance to protect the Roaring Fork River by limiting impacts to the surrounding area. That being said, the existing non-conforming bridge does not meet floodplain standards. In a 100 year storm event the bridge would most likely break apart and become debris in the flooded waterway. Debris carried in a flood event is hazardous to structures downstream. An updated bridge with an effective design will still induce flood hazards. Since the existing bridge and proposed bridge is located entirely within the stream margin, Engineering’s recommendation is to remove the existing bridge and restore the area to its natural condition. P21 VI.A. Parks Department Comments, April 1, 2015 1. There are concerns regarding the potential degradation of the island side abutment area. There has been historical scouring of the bank and we must assume that there will be in the future. (The Parks Department recently built a bridge just upstream on Hunter Creek and it may be a good example to follow if this project moves forward). 2. As long as the approved seed mix and plantings guidelines are used in the Top of Slope and 15’ setback area, Parks has no objections( Please advise the applicants that all plantings and any work done in these areas must be done by hand – NO MACHINERY). 3. We would like to discuss the “Breakaway Bridge” idea…. We used the incorrect term to describe this bridge. It is actually anchored on one side so that if it does come loose in high water, it stays put, rather than float away downstream to cause damage. 4. We would not be supportive of a much larger bridge, however moving it further away from the Top of Slope area would seem prudent. 5. As far as the use of a backhoe or machinery on the island, I thought that was not allowed in the Top of Slope and 15’Setback area. P22 VI.A. Memorandum 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704 -0311 • Fax (97 0) 704 -0313 S OPRIS E NGINEERING • LLC civil consultants To: Hillary Seminick City of Aspen Planner hillary.seminick@cityofaspen.com From: Yancy Nichol / John Petaisto Date: April 15, 2015 RE: 69 Shady Lane - Response to COA staff report for the April 7 P&Z staff report. (11057.03) Thank you for Staff's time reviewing this project, and for meeting with us on April 9th to discuss the upcoming Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commision's Special Review of a pedestrian bridge at 69 Shady Lane. The meeting helped us understand staff's position in their staff report that was prepared for the April 7, 2015 P&Z meeting. As requested by the applicant, the P&Z meeting was postponed by staff until the April 21st meeting. This memorandum has been prepared in response to staff's concerns and to provide additional plan information. The memo responds to the 26.435.040 Stream Margin Review code sections that staff identified as "criterion not met". The applicant response follows in bold font. 26.435.040.E. Special Review 1. Authorized survey.  On the main land side, the applicant has accepted the top of slope determination established by the previous stream margin review (Resolution 13-2010). The main land top of slope is generally accurate, and the proposed bridge abutment replaces existing boulders and timber ties in a previously disturbed area. The proposed bridge abutment will match the existing top of slope which minimizes erosion potential.  The entire island is part of the overall river section. The top of slope for the other side of the Roaring Fork River would be on the other side of the island. SE did survey the top of bank in 2014 as a part of the existing bridge and river survey. The top of bank for the island is included on the bridge exhibits and the CMP plan.  It is our opinion that this criteria has been met. 2. Proposed development does not meet 26.435.040.C criteria 1,2,3,8, & 9  Criteria 1 has been met. Criteria 2 is a recommendation. Upon approval, Criteria 3 will be met. Criteria 8 and 9 cannot be met, for which variances are requested. This is discussed further in the following section. 26.435.040.C. Stream margin review standards 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.  SE has prepared an engineering study that shows that the proposed bridge does not increase the base flood elevation. This review standard has been met. o The established FEMA flood analysis from 1985 does include base flood elevations. River cross section DW is just upstream of the bridge location. As staff pointed out, the data is 29 years old. This was the reason that the river section was resurveyed. The SE flood P23 VI.A. 11057-SE Memo-COA staff PZ report 04-15-2015.doc Page 2 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704 -0311 • Fax (970) 704 -0313 S OPRIS E NGINEERING • LLC civil consultants analysis conservatively assumed that the existing bridge was not in place. That is, we compared the proposed bridge to a "no hazard" condition. With this conservative analysis, the base flood elevation did not increase.  The existing bridge is almost entirely below the base flood elevation. The proposed bridge span across to the island is entirely above the base flood elevation. Only the proposed abutments are in the flood. The proposed bridge is clearly a greatly reduced flood hazard compared to the existing bridge.  Engineering commented that a proposed design will still induce flood hazards. This is true. Debris flowing in the 100 year flood may get caught on the proposed bridge. If the special review is approved, the structural bridge designer (Big R bridge) has agreed to redesign the bridge to have a fixed hinge on the main land end and have a breakaway connection on the island side. This will essentially eliminate the flood hazard above and beyond the flood level analysis. 2. Request for a fisherman's easement.  As stated in the staff report, this condition is a recommendation. The island, and this channel of the river that creates the island is entirely on the applicant's property. After consideration, the applicant has declined to grant the fisherman's easement to maintain personal privacy. 3. There is not vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to 26.435.040.F.1  The applicant agrees to comply with this standard. Upon approval, the limited disturbance areas will be recorded on a plat.  The proposed bridge replacement carefully considers and improves the existing condition. o Vegetation removed will be restored to the existing condition o Any excavation will restore the slope and grade to the existing condition. o The existing bridge pier will be removed. o The existing river banks will be maintained or will be restored pending further discussion with City staff. 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 high waterline, whichever is more restrictive.  The applicant requests a variance from this standard for the proposed bridge. A well designed replacement should be considered instead of maintenance of the existing bridge. The proposed bridge minimizes impact and reduces flood hazards to the extent possible. 9. Height limits outside the fifteen (15) foot setback.  The applicant requests a variance from this standard.  As staff has noted, this criteria is to reduce visual impacts in the river setback area. The proposed bridge will be visible. The existing bridge is also visible. The new bridge proposes the minimal impacts necessary to reduce the flood hazards, and is otherwise similar in size and scale to the existing bridge. P24 VI.A. 11057-SE Memo-COA staff PZ report 04-15-2015.doc Page 3 502 Main Street • Suite A3 • Carbondale, CO 81623 • (970) 704 -0311 • Fax (970) 704 -0313 S OPRIS E NGINEERING • LLC civil consultants We would also like to respond to several additional comments from the staff report. The comments are summarized and are followed by our response in bold font.  Parks department request for a "breakaway bridge" design o As noted above, Big R bridge has agreed to redesign the bridge to have a fixed hinge on the main land end and have a breakaway connection on the island side.  Restoration of the island bank. o Gary Beach, the wetlands consultant for the project, has recommended that the concrete remain in place to avoid further island bank disturbance. The concrete has been in place for a long period of time and appears stable. o The City Engineering department's review comment is also included here for reference: " Analyze the stability of this reinforced bank. Consider the benefits and harm to the area to redesign and restore this area." o Upon approval, and if restoration is still deemed necessary by City staff, the applicant's Wetlands Consultant and Landscape Architect will determine a solution, and will submit the plan for approval to the COA. Note; It is confusing why the proposed bridge replacement was not processed under code section 26.435.040.B. Exemptions. At our April 9th meeting with City staff, we were informed that exemptions apply only to public improvements. This is the reason that we are in front of the P&Z commission. As the design team looked at a proposed bridge to replace the existing, the design approach was to comply with the stream margin review standards to the extent practical. This is language from section B of the code. Because of the bridge location, we are requesting variances where we are not able to meet the code section C review standards. In summary, it is our professional opinion that the proposed bridge is a well designed replacement for the existing bridge. The bridge is close to the same size and scale as the existing bridge. The proposed bridge significantly reduces the flood hazard and is the preferable long term solution. At a minimum the owner will maintain the existing structure to maintain pedestrian access to the island. We would like to offer the following conditions of approval for consideration. At our April 9th meeting with staff, these conditions were discussed as appropriate construction measures should the P&Z grant approval. The applicant will work to resolve any other construction related concerns to minimize disturbance. 1. The proposed bridge shall be designed to have a fixed hinge on the main land end and have a breakaway connection on the island side. 2. Bridge excavation work on the island shall be performed by hand digging. No equipment shall be allowed on the island. 3. The crane setup shall occur outside of the 15' no touch setback line. The setback line shall be staked in the field prior to construction. Please call or email with any questions or if you need additional information. P25 VI.A. Crystal Palace Subdivision Staff Memo 4/21/15 Page 1 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Rebecca Levy, Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Crystal Palace Subdivision – 300 and 312 E. Hyman – Subdivision Plat Review for a Lot Merger MEETING DATE: April 21, 2015 APPLICANT: 312 E. HYMAN, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning, LLC LOCATION: 300 and 312 E. Hyman, AKA the “Crystal Palace.” LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots K and L of Block 81, and Lot M of Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen. PARCEL ID: 2737-073-38-005 2737-073-38-006 CURRENT ZONING: Commercial Core (CC) within the Historic District. A historic landmark designation is placed on 300 E. Hyman. SUMMARY: The applicant requests to merge two parcels (a 6,000 sf lot and a 3,000 sf lot) to create one 9,000 sf lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to merge Lots K and L of Block 81, and Lot M of Block 81, City and Townsite of Aspen. Photo 1: Current image of commercial buildings located at 300 and 312 E Hyman. SUMMARY: This Application is only for the consideration of a lot merger between 300 and 312 E. Hyman Avenue. Lot mergers are subject to the City of Aspen Land Use Code’s subdivision standards, per 26.480.020(A) Applicability. At this time, no application for development, demolition or change of use has been submitted to the City. According to 26.480.070(A), a lot merger must follow the Major Subdivision review process, which requires one hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and first and second reading before the City Council. The first reading before the P26 VI.B. Crystal Palace Subdivision Staff Memo 4/21/15 Page 2 of 4 City Council is scheduled for May 4th, and the public hearing to consider the final reading is scheduled for June 8th. BACKGROUND: The Applicant, 312 E. Hyman, LLC, owns two adjacent parcels on the northeast corner of E. Hyman Avenue and S. Monarch Street, and has submitted a complete application and Draft Plat for a lot merger in the Commercial Core (CC) Zone District. If approved, the proposal would create a single 9,000 square foot lot by consolidating the 6,000 square foot parcel located at 300 East Hyman, with the 3,000 square foot parcel located at 312 East Hyman. 300 E. Hyman is a single parcel composed of two lots, Lot K and Lot L, and is designated an historic landmark. The building known as the Crystal Palace is at 300 E. Hyman, and was erected in 1891 according to the Colorado Historical Society’s (1998) architectural survey. Several renovations have occurred since then, including two additions on the east side of the original structure. Lot M is to the east of 300 E. Hyman, and is not designated as an historic landmark. According to the Pitkin County Assessor’s website, the building on Lot M was first constructed in 1970. The Application under consideration requests that the entire resulting parcel, including Lot M, be designated as an historic landmark upon approval of the lot merger. 300 & 312 E. Hyman. Designated historic landmarks are shown in orange. 300 and 312 E. Hyman are outlined in red. Existing lot lines are drawn in yellow. P27 VI.B. Crystal Palace Subdivision Staff Memo 4/21/15 Page 3 of 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds the Draft Plat to meet the General Subdivision Review Standards in Section 26.480.040, including guaranteed access to a public way, alignment with the original townsite plat, conformance with the CC Zone District standards, and no increase in non-conformity of existing structures, uses or parcels. Staff also finds the Draft Plat to meet the review standards outlined in 26.480.070 Major Subdivisions, including enabling an efficient pattern of development in order to optimize land use, and the preservation of important features and structures. No known natural or manmade hazards pose a risk to the site, nor does the lot merger require stormwater mitigation or the development of other public improvements not already present. Because there is no proposed development at this time, the proposed lot merger is exempt from the Growth Management Quota System, School Land Dedication requirements, and the Vehicular Rights-of-Way requirements. A discussion of staff’s findings may be found in Exhibits A and B, which are hereby attached to this staff memo. Thus, Staff finds that the Crystal Palace Subdivision application meets all of the criteria pertaining to lot mergers in the City of Aspen Land Use Code Chapter 26.480 Subdivision. The Historic Preservation Program designates entire properties, not just the buildings on them. Extending the designation boundary to include the newly created 9,000 sf lot is consistent with the majority of the designation descriptions in Aspen. The Crystal Palace (300 E. Hyman) is a designated landmark; allowing the 3,000 sf lot at 312 E. Hyman to be included in the designation as a condition of the lot merger provides straightforward application of landmark benefits to the entire parcel, as opposed to only 2/3 of the newly created lot. Staff recommends that the entire 9,000 sf lot be designated historic as a condition of approval. No new or extra benefits are added to the 9,000 sf new parcel as a result of extending the designation boundary. PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve Resolution # ___, Series of 2015 recommending Subdivision approval to City Council. 300 E. Hyman Avenue Left: The original two-story structure has had a number of remodels and additions, including the attac hed garage, shown in this historic photograph (http://aspenvictorian.com/places/300-e-hyman/). Right: This photograph shows how the upper story of the garage was remodeled to mimic the original building, and the ground floors of the addition continued the theme from a remodel of the original building. P28 VI.B. Crystal Palace Subdivision Staff Memo 4/21/15 Page 4 of 4 Attachments: Exhibit A – General Subdivision Review Standards Exhibit B – Major Subdivision Review Criteria Exhibit C – Draft Plat Exhibit D – Proof of publication Exhibit E – Public Comments Received Exhibit F - Application P29 VI.B. RESOLUTION NO. ___, SERIES OF 2015 A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE CRYSTAL PALACE SUBDIVISION, COMMONLY KNOWN AS 300 AND 312 EAST HYMAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS K AND L, AND LOT M OF BLOCK 81, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO PARCEL NOS. 2737-073-38-005 and 2737-073-38-006 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from 300 E. Hyman, LLC represented by Hass Land Planning, LLC. requesting the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Subdivision to merge the two lots into one lot, and to designate the entire resulting parcel as an historic landmark. WHEREAS, the property located at 300 E. Hyman is designated an Historic Landmark; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received referral comments from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City Engineering, and the Utilities Department; and, WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on April 21, 2015, the Planning and Zoning Commission opened a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the subdivision proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets all applicable subdivision standards and that the approval of the subdivision proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Subdivision to combine Lots K and L, and Lot M of Block 81 of the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado: Page 1 of 3 P30 VI.B. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approval to merge Lot K and L with Lot M of the City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The newly created lot, is 9,000 square feet as depicted on the attached draft plat. Section 2: Engineering The Applicant’s final plat map shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 29. Section 3: Historic Designation: The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends City Council approval to extend historic landmark designation to the entire parcel resulting from this subdivision approval. Section 4: This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 5: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 21st day of April, 2015. Ryan Walterschield, Chairman APPROVED AS TO FORM: Deb Quinn, Assistant City Attorney ATTEST: Kathy Strickland, Deputy City Clerk Page 2 of 3 P31 VI.B. Exhibit A: Draft Plat Page 3 of 3 P32 VI.B. P33 V I . B . Exhibit A – General Subdivision Review Standards 26.480.040. General subdivision review standards. A. Guaranteed Access to a Public Way. All subdivided lots must have perpetual unobstructed legal vehicular access to a public way. A proposed subdivision shall not eliminate or obstruct legal vehicular access from a public way to an adjacent property. All streets in a Subdivision retained under private ownership shall be dedicated to public use to ensure adequate public and emergency access. Security/privacy gates across access points and driveways are prohibited. Staff Findings: Neither the creation of new rights of way, nor an alteration in street pattern are proposed in this subdivision application. The property currently has, and will continue to have, street and alley access. Staff finds this criteria met. B. Alignment with Original Townsite Plat. The proposed lot lines shall approximate, to the extent practical, the platting of the Original Aspen Townsite, and additions thereto, as applicable to the subject land. Minor deviations from the original platting lines to accommodate significant features of the site may be approved. Staff Findings: The site under review is located on a corner of a block that was platted as part of the City’s original townsite. Lot K and L are located on the corner of E. Hyman and S. Monarch. While many of the lots of the original townsite are 3,000 square feet, it was not uncommon to have larger lots on corners, particularly within the Commercial Core, such as the Brand Building and the Elks Building. This subdivision will still maintain the appearance of three separate storefronts. No demolition or development is included in the review of this application. An application for redevelopment is required to meet the Commercial Core Historic District Design Guidelines which has specific requirements for modulating larger lots, and is reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for compliance. Staff finds this criteria met. C. Zoning Conformance. All new lots shall conform to the requirements of the zone district in which the property is situated, including variations and variances approved pursuant to this Title. A single lot shall not be located in more than one zone district unless unique circumstances dictate. A rezoning application may be considered concurrently with subdivision review. Staff Findings: The existing structures and lots conform to the requirements of the Commercial Core Zone District, which allows for a mix of commercial uses including retail, lodging, short term rentals. There are no minimum or maximum lot sizes within the current zone designation. Staff finds this criteria met. D. Existing Structures, Uses, and Non-Conformities. A subdivision shall not create or increase the non-conformity of a use, structure or parcel. A rezoning application or other mechanism to correct the non-conforming nature of a use, structure, or parcel may be considered concurrently. Staff Findings: The lots, buildings and uses on both lots are in conformance with regulations in the City of Aspen Land Development Code. Staff finds this criteria met. P34 VI.B. E. In the case where an existing structure or use occupies a site eligible for subdivision, the structure need not be demolished and the use need not be discontinued prior to application for subdivision. Staff Findings: This application does not propose to demolish or discontinue any existing use. Staff finds this criteria met. F. If approval of a subdivision creates a non-conforming structure or use, including a structure spanning a parcel boundary, such structure or use may continue until recordation of the subdivision plat. Alternatively, the City may accept certain assurance that the non- conformities will be remedied after recordation of the subdivision plat. Such assurances shall be reflected in a development agreement or other legal mechanism acceptable to the City Attorney and may be time-bound or secured with a financial surety. Staff Findings: The existing structures and uses are in compliance, and would continue to be in compliance if the application is approved. Staff finds this criteria met. P35 VI.B. Exhibit B – Major Subdivision Approval Criteria 26.480.070. Major subdivisions. The following subdivisions shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the City Council, after receiving a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. Major subdivisions are subject to Section 26.480.030 – Procedures for Review, the standards and limitations of Section 26.480.040 – General Subdivision Review Standards, and the standards and limitations of each type of subdivision, described below. All subdivisions not defined as administrative or minor subdivisions shall be considered major subdivisions. A. Land Subdivision. The division or aggregation of land for the purpose of creating individual lots or parcels shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the following standards: 1. The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040 – General Subdivision Review Standards. Staff Findings: The proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of Section 26.480.040, as discussed in Exhibit A. Staff finds this criterion met. 2. The proposed subdivision enables an efficient pattern of development that optimizes the use of the limited amount of land available for development. Staff Findings: The proposed subdivision would not require the extension of utilities, and does not require additional public infrastructure. Staff finds this criteria met. 3. The proposed subdivision preserves important geologic features, mature vegetation, and structures or features of the site that have historic, cultural, visual, or ecological importance or contribute to the identity of the town. Staff Findings: The Applicant is requesting to expand the historic landmark to include Lot M. Both lots are already located in the Historic District which requires Historic Preservation Commission review over any exterior changes. Expanding the designation boundary provides a straightforward application of the historic benefits and is consistent with the Historic Preservation Program policy to designate properties and not specific buildings. There are no geologic or vegetal features of importance on either lot. The historic, cultural and visual significance of 300 E. Hyman would not be impacted by a lot merger. Staff finds this criteria met. 4. The proposed subdivision prohibits development on land unsuitable for development because of natural or man-made hazards affecting the property, including flooding, mudflow, debris flow, fault ruptures, landslides, rock or soil creep, rock falls, rock slides, mining activity including mine waste deposit, avalanche or snowslide areas, slopes in excess of 30%, and any other natural or man-made hazard or condition that could harm the health, safety, or welfare of the community. Affected areas may be accepted as suitable for development if adequate mitigation techniques acceptable to the City Engineer are proposed in compliance with Title 29 – Engineering Design Standards. Conceptual plans for mitigation techniques may be accepted with P36 VI.B. specific design details and timing of implementation addressed through a Development Agreement pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. Staff Findings: The site under review is not subject to any known natural, man-made or geologic hazards. 5. 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). The City Engineer may require specific designs, mitigation techniques, and implementation timelines be defined and documented within a Development Agreement. Staff Findings: The Applicant has stated that they will comply with all applicable requirements of the Engineering Design Standards as a condition of approval. All recorded plats require the Engineering Department to certify that the plat meets the standards of Title 29. No engineering or design is required for this lot merger. 6. The proposed subdivision shall upgrade public infrastructure and facilities necessary to serve the subdivision. Improvements shall be at the sole cost of the developer. Staff Findings: No upgrades or public infrastructure are necessary for this application. The Applicant is aware that any public improvements will be at the expense of the developer. 7. The proposed subdivision is exempt from or has been granted all growth management approvals pursuant to Chapter 26.470 – Growth Management Quota System, including compliance with all affordable housing requirements for new and replacement development as applicable. Staff Findings: No development or change of use are being proposed as part of this subdivision application. 8. The proposed subdivision meets the School Land Dedication requirements of Chapter 26.620 and any land proposed for dedication meets the criteria for land acceptance pursuant to said Chapter. Staff Findings: No residential uses are being proposed as part of this subdivision application. 9. A Subdivision Plat shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. Staff Findings: If approved, a final subdivision plat, meeting all of the City of Aspen’s Code requirements will be recorded with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. 10. A Development Agreement shall be reviewed and recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, pursuant to Chapter 26.490 – Approval Documents. Staff Findings: No new or updated public infrastructure is required for this subdivision application, and thus, no development agreement is necessary. P37 VI.B. B. Vehicular Rights-of-Way. The dedication, boundary alteration, realignment, or any partial or whole vacation of a Street, Alley, or other vehicular right-of-way serving more than one parcel, shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied according to the following standards: No rights-of-way are necessary or required for this proposed lot merger. If approved, the subdivision would create one parcel. Therefore this section does not apply. P38 VI.B. P39 V I . B . P40 VI.B. P41 VI.B. Exhibit E - Comments From: Junee Kirk [mailto:junee.kirk@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 4:59 PM To: Sara Adams; patricksagal@yahoo.com; norahowie@comcast.net Subject: deny any merging of Crystal Palace with neighboring structure Dear Members of HPC: As a long term resident in Aspen and former member of an HPC preservation committee formed in the mid 2000’s, I am alarmed at what Mr. Hunt wants to do to the Crystal Palace! I urge you as a board, as you have the last word on this application, to deny it . Merging one building into to the next, does not preserve any semblance of a historic Victorian, but once again is the return of the ugly big box modern look everyone in town objects to and one of the reasons for the charter amendment. People from all over the country used to return to Aspen to see the great shows at the Crystal Palace. While these shows are no longer, the troupe is still around and could again easily engage a public with return engagements if the developer chose to do this with the building. While this is not HPC’s concern, preservation of the Victorian and its character on the outside of the building is your purview. Keeping a low profile Victorian in its height, varied roof line with little chimneys, windows and dormers on its top floor is important to maintaining its memory as a Victorian and its past as once a theatre. IF you allow the Crystal Palace to merge into one big site, just to create a boutique hotel, you have lost your course as HPC and historic preservation. Let the developer keep the entire outside of the small building, dig below grade on the neighboring property and go higher on the neighboring property ( if necessary) , but Please do NOT any of this on the Crystal Palace building. Please understand that to merge these two buildings in height and mass will forever destroy the historic character of the Crystal Palace as well as the character of the entire historic block. Sincerely, Junee Kirk Ps. Please pass on to other members of HPC P42 VI.B. From: Junee Kirk [mailto:junee.kirk@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 9:55 AM To: junee.kirk@comcast.net Subject: Crystal Palace ; P&Z April 21st. Dear Friends: Those of us who are concerned with the loss of character along Hyman Street, should attend the next P&Z meeting on April 21st, whose board members decide the fate of the Crystal Palace. I, for one, am alarmed at what Mr. Hunt wants to do with the Crystal Palace by merging it with the adjoining building, creating yet another box and destroying the Victorian Character of the Crystal Palace. (This is why we should vote YES on Referendum 1, to change the charter.) Once again a developer is ignoring the historic character of one of our more cherished Victorians. In an effort to take advantage of incentives and variances for new lodging, Mr. Hunt wants to merge this property with the neighboring property creating yet another massive wall. For many of us who remember the Crystal Palace as a popular musical theatre in 60’s through 90’s, it has always remained a charm along the historic block, as an small bookend to the Wheeler. Its architecture, windows, doors, dormers, on its top floor and varied roof line with little chimneys, is important to maintain, as character to the Victorian. Let’s not turn it into a massive “box”. Let P&Z hear your voice, that No merging should be allowed , for this compromises the existing small scale and architecture of the commercial Victorian As citizens, I urge you to attend the P&Z meeting on April 21st, to voice your opinion and to urge denial on merging this historic building into to the neighboring building. We will once again have the return of ‘ the big ugly, modern look’ that most everyone dislikes. Once the historic character of the Crystal Palace is destroyed so is the entire historic block. Sincerely, Junee Kirk P43 VI.B. P 4 4 V I . B . P 4 5 V I . B . P 4 6 V I . B . P 4 7 V I . B . P 4 8 V I . B . P 4 9 V I . B . P 5 0 V I . B . P 5 1 V I . B . P 5 2 V I . B . P 5 3 V I . B . P 5 4 V I . B . P 5 5 V I . B . P 5 6 V I . B . P 5 7 V I . B . P 5 8 V I . B . P 5 9 V I . B . P 6 0 V I . B . P 6 1 V I . B . P62 V I . B . P63 V I . B . P 6 4 V I . B . P 6 5 V I . B . P 6 6 V I . B . P 6 7 V I . B . P 6 8 V I . B . P 6 9 V I . B . P 7 0 V I . B . P 7 1 V I . B . P 7 2 V I . B . P 7 3 V I . B . P 7 4 V I . B .