Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sp.Rio Grande Skate.A033002737-073-06-851 A033-00 -Rio Grande Skateboard Park SPA Amendment 0 . - .9- .1, M a CASE NUMBER A033-00 PARCEL ID # 2737-073-06851 CASE NAME Rio Grande Skateboard Park PROJECT ADDRESS Rio Grande Park PLANNER Nick Lelack CASE TYPE SPA Amendment OWNER/APPLICANT City of Aspen Parks Dept REPRESENTATIVE Rebecca Shickling and Scott Chism DATE OF FINAL ACTION 5/9/00 CITY COUNCIL ACTION Ordinance #14-2000 PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED 5/17/00 BY J. Lindt PARCEL ID: 12737-073-06851 DATE RCVD: 3/177 # COPIES: — CASE NO A033-00 CASE NAME: Rio Grande Skateboard Park PLNR: Nick Lelack PROJ ADDR: Rio Grande Park CASE TYP: SPA Amendment STEPS:F— OWN/APP: I City of Aspen Parks ADR CIS/Z: I PHN: 920-5120 REP: Rebecca Shickling and Scott ADR: 585 Cemetery Lane C/S/Z: Aspen/CO/81611 PHN: 920-5120 FEES DUE: None FEES RCVDI STAT: r REFERRALS F2EF:F— BYF— DUE:r MTG DATE REV BODY PH NOTICED F— F— I I I I I I DATE OF FINAL ACl REMARKS CITY COUNCIL: PZ: ��` BOA: CLOSED: ; ( �,�BY: I 7 DRAC: PLAT SUBMITD: �__y_ PLAT (BK,PG): ADMIN: DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year .vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. City of Aspen Parks and Recreation Department, 585 Cemetery Lane, Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address and telephone number Rio Grande Park Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Specially Planned Area Amendment Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attach►nent Describing Plan Ordinance # 14-2000, 5/9/00 Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) May 20, 2000 Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) May 21, 2003 Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code.) Issued this 20th day of May, 2000, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Woods, Community Development Director PUBLIC NOTICE Of DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following described property: Rio Grande Park, by Ordinance of the City Council numbered 14, series of 2000. For further information contact Julie Ann Woods, at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St, Aspen, Colorado (970) 920-5090. s/City of Aspen Account Publish in The Aspen Times on May 20, 2000 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Directo Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner�#, RE: Specially Planned Area Review to Build a Skateboard Park and to Relocate the Basketball Court on Rio Grande Park, Site B — Second Reading/Public Hearing DATE: May 8, 2000 SUMMARY: The proposal is to build a 17,000 square foot depressed skateboard park where the basketball court currently exists and to build a new basketball court in the undeveloped area shown in the photograph to the right. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 5 to 2 vote on April 18. Please see Exhibit B for an aerial photo. APPLICANT: City Parks Department REPRESENTATIVES: Rebecca Shickling, City Parks Deputy Director Scott Chism, City Parks Planner REVIEW PROCEDURE: ZONING: Public, Specially Planned Area Overlay LOCATION: Rio Grande Park, Site B Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Review: This two step process requires approval of a development plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, with public hearings occurring at both. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval to the City Council. The Rio Grande master plan was developed as a conceptual SPA Plan. Following its adoption, new development or significant alterations must be consistent with this conceptual SPA plan and be reviewed pursuant to the final SPA development review process. • • STAFF COMMENTS: The City of Aspen Parks Deparment, ("Applicant"), represented by Scott Chism, Parks Planner, is requesting approval of a Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B. City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission endorsed the Rio Grande Master Plan in 1993. Rio Grande Park is divided into two (2) sites, Site A and Site B. Site A is located between the bike path and row of large Cottonwoods that edge the playing field, and the river. It also includes the snow melter and the drainage pond closest to Mill Street. Site B encompasses the recycle site, access road to Site A, the triangle of open space between the access road and bike/pedestrian path, and the playing field. It is bordered by Rio Grande Drive, Mill Street, and a row of Cottonwoods and the bike/pedestrian path to the north. The proposed skateboard park would be located on Site B in the open space triangle, which currently contains a basketball court and open space. The Master Plan outlines recommended land uses/activities for Site B. A half -pipe skateboard ramp is identified as one of the activities intended for this parcel (page 16). Although the proposed skateboard park is larger than a half -pipe ramp, the proposed skateboard park is consistent with the Master Plan and conceptual review. Specifically, the Plan's Recommended Actions for Site B include the following actions: • The City should work with the Youth Center to development more recreational activities on Site B. • The Youth Center and the City should install a half -pipe skateboard ramp in the open space between the recycle facility and the playing field. Site B is relatively flat, and contains stable soils and no utilities other than an existing electrical line. Site B is a relatively small area that will be incorporated into the overall Civic Center Master Plan, scheduled to be completed by late autumn. The Civic Center Master Plan will address a permanent location for restroom facilities for this area. Currently, seasonal san-o-lets are located in the park near the theater. This proposal includes the provision of two more san-o-let enclosures for all park users. In addition, public restrooms are located across Rio Grande Place in the parking garage and at the Youth Center. Key skateboard park elements include the following: • The centerpiece of the proposal is a 17,000 square foot, "L-shape," in -ground, concrete skateboard park containing areas for all skill levels. Building concrete structures below the natural grade would minimize the noise and visual impacts of the skateboard park. • The basketball court would be relocated to the north with better sun exposure. • The existing drinking fountain would be relocated to the plaza space; the plaza space would serve as the park entry. 2 • A 35-foot buffer zone south of the Rio Grande Trail would be created, exceeding the 20-foot buffer zone outlined in the master plan. • No new parking spaces would be created. • No new lights would be added to the park. The City Council should also be aware that any future rail or trolley facility would be located in the playing field area to the west as identified in the Master Plan. On April 18, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 2 to recommend that City Council approve the Specially Planned Area Review for the skateboard park with conditions. A draft of the meeting minutes from this hearing are attached as Exhibit C. A couple of Commissioners and one member of the public, John Bush, raised concerns over how the proposed development of the new skateboard park, relocated basketball court, and landscaping would affect the development of a Trolley System (tracks and poles, car barn facility, trolley cars, etc.). Specifically, these members opposed the application because the site plan did not indicate how a Trolley System could function on this site juxtaposed to the skateboard park and basketball court; therefore, they did not believe they could make an informed decision. Other Commissioners explained that, although they have long supported the concept of a Trolley System, no development plans for it have been proposed and may not be proposed for the next 10, 20, or even 50 years. These members stated that they do not want this application delayed because it will provide an immediate, needed recreation amenity for the community's youth. These members strongly support the application. The Commission approved a recommendation that the Parks Department provide a Trolley System overlay on the site plan for Council's review. The Commission also recommends that transportation rights for the park be superior to all other rights in the future. The Trolley System overlay will be presented to City Council at the public hearing for this application on May 8. Staff does not believe a condition recognizing the superiority of transportation rights for the park is necessary for two (2) reasons. First, Parks Department Staff contends that the proposed skateboard park, relocated basketball court and landscape plan have been designed in a manner that respects any future transportation/trolley uses for the park. Second, the Rio Grande Master Plan states that, "Because the site was purchased with 7' Penny Transportation funds, the basis of future development goals is transportation oriented. " Therefore, transportation uses of the park shall remain the priority use. It should be noted that the Rio Grande Master Plan does not designate a Trolley System as the designated use for the park; rather, it lists the system as one possible use. The first recommendation in the Recommended Actions for Site B is the following: The City of Aspen should decide whether a City-wide trolley system is appropriate in 3 • • Aspen. This decision has not yet been made and will likely be further explored as part of the Civic Center Master Plan. Community Development Staff supports the proposed skateboard park development because it (1) meets the review criteria, (2) provides an important community recreation facility, and (3) would be designed in a manner that minimizes its overall impact on the park, the neighborhood, and respects the transportation use options that have been contemplated through the years for this site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B, with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Emergency vehicle access to the theatre shall be maintained. 3. Currently, the fire extinguisher demonstration classes are performed on the present basketball courts. The Parks Department shall consider a court surface that will allow for the continuation of these demonstration classes. 4. The Applicant shall relocate the existing conduit to the satisfaction of the Electric Department. 5. The Applicant shall install water facilities to the relocated drinking fountain at the entrance to Rio Grande Park. 6. A water spigot for the cleanout of the area should be provided. It may be possible to use the irrigation lines if there is no change in the back flow. 7. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed on site during construction. 8. Prior to Construction: a. The Applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for the removal of trees on site. b. The Applicant shall submit and the City Engineer shall approve a drainage plan for the site. Drainage shall be controlled in a way that is beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance No. 14, Series of 2000, the Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B." El • CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Aerial Photograph of Rio Grande Park Exhibit C -- Draft Meeting Minutes from the April 18, 2000, Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing C:\home\nickl\Active Cases\Rio Grand SPA Skateboard Park Amendment\CC Public Hearing.doc EXHIBIT A Rio GRANDE SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA REVIEW REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS 26.440.050. Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Staff Finding Staff believes the proposed skateboard park is compatible with and enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. The proposed development would be located in the Rio Grande Park. The skateboard park would enhance the mix of recreation activities in and around the park, which include a large playing field, basketball court, bike/pedestrian paths, and fly fishing in the Roaring Fork River. A wide -range of land uses exist in the immediate vicinity, including civic, institutional, commercial, office, recreational, retail, and light industrial uses. This development would add to the eclectic mix of uses in and around the area. The proposal is to build depressed concrete structures. The height, bulk and architecture are compatible with the park and its surroundings. Landscaping will be provided to create a "canopy effect" around the depressed structures, and open space will be maintained to the greatest extent practicable. A half -pipe skateboard ramp is identified as one of the activities intended for this parcel in the Rio Grande Master Plan. Although the proposed skateboard consists of more structures than a half -pipe ramp, the structures are depressed. The proposed development is consistent with the Rio Grande Master Plan and conceptual review approval. This criterion is addressed. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Staff Finding Adequate roads exist to service the proposed skateboard park. Access to this park feature is provided by Rio Grande Place as well as the stairs connecting Rio Grande Place to Galena Street. RFTA and the Galena Street Shuttle service this area. Currently, seasonal san-o-lets are located in the park near the theater. This proposal includes the provision of two more san-o-let enclosures for all park users. In addition, public restrooms are located across Rio Grande Place in the parking garage and Youth Center. The Civic Center Master Plan will address a permanent location for restroom facilities for this area. The existing drinking fountain would be relocated to a new plaza serving as the park's entrance. An existing conduit, or electrical line, would be relocated as part of this development. Parking impacts are not expected to be significant since the nature of skateboarding is transportation and recreation; it is likely that skateboarders will arrive at the park on their skateboards, by bus, or on foot. This criterion is addressed. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff Finding Staff believes Site B is suitable for the development of a skateboard park. The Applicant has stated that the soils are stable and has provided a Geo-technical report documenting this finding. This site is not susceptible to mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers, or flood hazards. This criterion is met. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Staff Finding Staff believes the proposed development employs exceptional land planning techniques in this design. Depressing the concrete structures preserves all view planes, avoids adverse environmental impacts, and minimizes potential visual and noise impacts. The design also preserves open space, trails, and all park amenities for users and the public at large. In addition, the basketball court would be relocated to maximize sun exposure, and new park amenities would be provided, including the skateboard park and more san-o- lets. And, the provision of a 35-foot buffer from the Rio Grande Trail exceeds the 20- foot recommendation in the Master Plan. Further, the proposal provides structures for skateboarders of all levels, and separates the beginners from the experts for safety and enjoyment reasons. This criterion is met. S. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Although the AACP does not address expanding recreational opportunities in town, the location of the proposed skateboard park is consistent with many AACP goals. For example, the park is located in the center of town, making it accessible by alternative 2 • • modes of transportation such as by bus, bike, skateboard, or on foot. The plan also calls for creating mixed use developments, and this park will enhance the variety of land uses that already exist on Rio Grande Park and in the immediate vicinity. Staff believes this criterion is addressed. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Finding Staff does not believe the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. City Council has appropriated funds for all aspects of the project out of the Parks Department budget. This criterion is addressed. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040(B) (2). Staff Finding The slopes do not exceed 20%; this criterion is not applicable. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments Jor the proposed development. Staff Finding No GMQS allotments are required for this project; this criterion is not applicable. Rio Grande Park Exhibit B 61 .. :7 • APRIL 18.2000 Bob Blaich opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m. in the Sister Cities Meeting Room with Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Roger Haneman, Steven Buettow, Tim Mooney, Ron Erickson and Charles Vresilovic present. City staff in attendance: Rebecca Schickling, Scott Chism, Parks Department; Chris Bendon, Nick Lelack, Joyce Ohlson, Community Development; Lee Novak, Housin ; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk._ , PUBLIC HEARING: 1 �� SKATEBOARD PARK — RIO GRANDE SPA AMENDMENT Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated that the notice was received and the commission had permission to proceed. Nick Lelack presented the proposal for a 17,000 square foot depressed skateboard park to be located in Rio Grande Park by Resolution #21. Lelack said the basketball courts would be moved to an undeveloped area to the south. Lelack noted that site A was north of the yellow line and the Skateboard Park would be located on Site B. Lelack stated that P&Z and City Council approved the Rio Grande Master Plan in 1993 and that plan was a conceptual approval for the park. He said that any development must go through a final 2-step SPA process (City P&Z and then City Council). Lelack noted that there were no new lights approved for the park or any new parking for the park. He said there would be a couple of new sani-lets until the new Civic Center Master Plan was completed. Scott Chism utilized a colored map for the different zones, the yellow band was the 20-foot buffer zone necessary for the potential future use of a transportation corridor. The green circle was the future site of the John Denver Memorial along the river. The skateboard area was along the park edge. Chism noted there were 4 basic skateboard areas: a plaza space for the park proper and seating area, the walkway that accessed the general Park, basketball courts and skateboard park. He said there was a beginner skate portion and then elements in the Skate Park which become more difficult. Rebecca Schickling noted that the transportation easement did include the possible trolley line placement. Roger Hunt stated that the entire Rio Grande Park was transportation, which included the recycle and red area. Hunt said that buffer was an indefinite boundary and he stated concern for the area being proposed in this plan as a transportation corridor, that was not where the trolley would be but rather on the south side of that buffer area. Chism said that the "red zone" triangle of land was identified to be devoted to youth recreation (specifically for skateboard and basketball). Hunt reiterated that the original basketball court could have a 1 • corridor for the Trolley around it and this plan just filled in that area. Chism noted that the proposed plan included all landscape and actual hard surface, which could be part of the original corridor with a 20-foot boundary. Schickling distributed drawings from the original master plan. Ron Erickson asked if the skateboard park would be available for in -line skating and if it would be snow -melted in the winter. Chism replied that in -line skaters would be accommodated but the skateboard park would not be snow -melted. Charles Vresilovic asked why the basketball courts were being moved. He asked why the skateboard park wasn't realigned to accommodate the basketball courts. Chism replied that they were trying to accommodate all the current uses with the passive sections being the Theatre, John Denver Memorial and the trail. Chism said the skate park would be a more active use than the basketball courts and noted that the lines needed to be longer than the courts with a smoother surface. Vresilovic asked if there would be fencing because of the hazards of the sport and an area for bike racks. Chism replied that the existing grade would be used to their benefit for the skate area and bike racks would be supplied. Mooney asked where the observation area was located. Chism responded there was a turf edge, street tree planting with a grass slope that went down 4 to 1; this slope and edge would be a great seating area because of the view from above the skate area. There was a significant beginner area with a significant deck space under the trees. Mooney stated that he was not in favor of any kind of commercialization of this area, no vendors. Schickling stated that there were no plans for any vending activity in any of the parks. Roger Haneman asked if the $100,000.00 in state lottery funds had any restrictions placed on the use. Schickling replied that the state had placed no restrictions. Chism responded that there were also private donations, they have made an application for a GOCO grant and have general parks and recreation funds. Buettow asked what after dark activities were planned. Chism and Schickling both answered that there would not be any lights because lights would be in conflict with the other park uses. Chism said this was daytime activity only. Jasmine Tygre asked if the 17,000 square feet L-shaped in -ground park was the entire park area or just the concrete portion. Chism replied that it was essentially (plus or minus) the concrete area. Pa 0 APRIL Vresilovic asked if there was a drainage plan. Chism responded that drainage would be accommodated with the engineering plan which included the landscape areas. Roger Hunt asked how deep was the deepest bowl and if water analysis of the area had been done. Chism answered it was about a 10 foot depth from ramp to bottom. Schickling replied that a water analysis was done. Jon Busch, public, stated that it appeared the trolley plan was not reviewed because of the placement for the trolley barn; he said this plan, as it stood, eliminated the trolley. Chism replied that the recycle center area was where the trolley barn was to be located and the playing field area was to be for the terminal. Busch stated concern for the trolley turn around in that area from an engineering standpoint. Tammy Dawson, Theatre in the Park, stated concern for sidewalk that the patrons used because it was being changed with this new development. Dawson wanted to make sure that the walkway was designed to carry vehicles for set -design, stage props and handicap access. Dawson said that noise was a concern during performance times; she asked if it was possible to post signs for the performances times. Schickling replied that the Skateboard Park was close to town with enforcement if necessary and that signs could be posted. Dawson stated support for the Skateboard Park but wanted to be assured that the park uses remain compatible. Alan Osborn, Theatre in the Park, said that they appreciated all the work done and voiced concern for the entrance to the Theatre being in conflict with in -line skaters on the path. Mitch Haas, public, asked if bikes would be allowed on the ramps in the Skate Park. Chism replied that the users would work out the uses. Hunt stated that he did not want to see this go forward until he saw how the rails would work. He said that he did not want to approve anything that might prevent the rails from happening. Erickson stated that he was a trolley lover, however he said that he had been a trolley lover for 20 years and nothing has happened yet. He said that he did not want any delay in this skate park because this was progress; the kids needed to get out of downtown in a place designed for their use. Tygre said the concern for the transit uses was valid because it was a matter of public trust. Tygre noted that a piece of land purchased with transit money was supposed to be used for transit. She said that if the land was used for something 3 else then it needed to be more of a public process than just a P&Z meeting. Tygre stated that the acquisition of this land was part open space and part transit funds; she said that many worthy groups approached the city for space in the Rio Grande park. Tygre stated that she was not sure that this was the best place for a skateboard park, given the history of the Youth Center. She questioned taking an area of a park and putting 17,000 square feet of concrete on it, even below grade, as such a good idea. She said that from the land use planning area there were a lot of questions to be answered and she said that she was not ready to make a decision on this until those questions were answered. Blaich asked, for the sake of public safety, where the Ambulance access would be located. Chism replied it was the same access as the handicap use for the Theatre. Mooney requested that a condition be added to include an overlay from the existing master plan and a diagram from the existing conditions from the railway and trolley designs, including the access. Mooney said that this would show no encroachment and the priority for trolley and transportation facilities on this property. Hunt stated that even with that condition added he felt that it was premature to approve this until it was shown that this could work. Buettow asked since this was purchased with transportation money, could the added condition include that transportation rights were primary to the recreational rights, and if in the future the public wanted to place the trolley system on this property, it had priority. Buettow said that if a study proved that the transportation could not work with this plan, then the Skateboard Park would have to be taken out. Erickson stated that transportation rights are superior to recreation in this vicinity. Blaich asked Parks to come back with a plan that shows that this will work with the trolley, transportation and parks. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the Specially Planned Area Review to build a Skateboard Park and relocate the basketball courts on Rio Grande Site B finding that all of the criteria have been met and to adopt P&Z Resolution# 21-2000 with conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Emergency vehicle access to the theatre shall be maintained. 3. Currently, the fire extinguisher demonstration classes are performed on the present basketball courts. The Parks Department shall consider a court surface that will allow for the continuation of these demonstration classes. 4. The Applicant shall relocate 2 • APRIL 18.2000 the existing conduit to the satisfaction of the Electric Department. 5. The Applicant shall install water facilities to the relocated drinking fountain at the entrance to Rio Grande Park. 6. A water spigot for the cleanout of the area should be provided. It may be possible to use the irrigation lines if there is no change in the back flow. 7. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed on site during construction. 8. Prior to Construction: a. The Applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for the removal of trees on site. b. The Applicant shall submit and the City Engineer shall approve a drainage plan for the site. Drainage shall be controlled in a way that is beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. 9. The Applicant shall provide a Trolley System overlay on the Rio Grande Park site plan to City Council, demonstrating how the proposed skateboard park, basketball court, and landscaping would affect the potential for a Trolley System. Transportation rights for Rio Grande Park shall be superior to all other rights in the future. Tim Mooney second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, no; Hunt, no; Mooney, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 5-2. Schickling noted that the master plan stated that the group realized that there other decision -making processes that could effect the development of the two sites. The group knew that a valley wide rail system terminating at the Rio Grande, ultimately a tri-county decision that could use a significant portion of the property. Schickling stated that she felt that was an underlying presumption of the property. Ohlson said the plans needed to be revised prior to council submittal and the overlay would be shown at council. k • • County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT } ss. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATIONS State of Colorado } SECTION 26.304.060(E) I, IR 6TjeCCA !�>" t U_L, i tJ C� , being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements pursuant to Section 26.304.060(E) of the Aspen Municipal Code in the following manner: 1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class postage prepaid U.S. Mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, as indicated on the attached list, on the L5 day of �r; _, 200_0 _ (which is a days prior to the public hearing date of tAAM b Z000 ). 2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously from the Z day of A P61 � , 200L-, to the __6 day of JAAV , 200 D . (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto. (Attach photograph here) I AND OFFICIAL SEAL My Commission expires: i"::— f ��Q� c L, Notary Public f PUBLIC NOTICE RE: RIO GRANDE PARK FINAL SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA REVIEW NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Monday, May 8, 2000 at a meeting to begin at 5:00 p.m. before the Aspen City Council, Council Chambers, City Hall, Aspen, to consider an application submitted by the City of Aspen requesting approval of an amendment to the Rio Grande Park Specially Planned Area to build a skateboard park. The property is legally described as a Block P, of the City and Townsite of Aspen and is commonly known as Rio Grande Park. For further information, contact Nick Lelack at the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO, (970) 920-5095, nick1@ci.aspen.co.us. s/Rachel E. Richards, Mayor Aspen City Council Published in the Aspen Times on April 22, 2000 City of Aspen Account 171 rI COULTER GAYLA W PO BOX L3 ASPEN CO 81612 VIDAL C A REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES C/O 855 W EER RD CARBO LE CO-81623 VIDAL C A REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES C/O 855 WOOD&O DEER RD CARBGNOALE 81623 RIVER PARK IN ASPEN CONDO ASSOC 730 E DUARANt ASPEEL CO 81611"- RIVE ARK IN ASPEN CONDO ASSOC 730ED ASP,EO CO > 1,611 • • ALLEN DOUGLAS P MORSE JAMES A TRUST 1/2 INT ELDER NELS REINHARD ESTATE OF ELDER JANET C 600 E HOPKINS STE 302 107 SINCLAIR ARCH ST 202 N MONARCH ASPEN CO 81611 MUSKEGAN MI 49441 ASPEN N 81611 MORSE JAMES A TRUST 107 SINCLAIR DR MUSKEGON MI 49441 LARSON KARL G LARSON M MADELEINE P O BOX 8207 ASPEN CO 81612 JEROME OFFICE ASPEN COMPANY LLC 201 N MILL ST STE 106 ASPEN CO 81611 LARSON KARL G LAR-56 ELEINE POB 20 N CO 81612 201 NORTH MILL ASSOCIATES LLC 50% KRABACHER FAMILY TRUST 50% 201 N MILL ST STE 201 ASPEN CO 81611 201 NORTH MILL ASSOCIATES LLC 50% KRAR.F,WILY TRUST 50% 201 N MI 201 ASP CO 81611 KLEIN HERBERT S KLEIN MARSHA L AS JOINT TENANTS 201 N MILL ST STE 203 ASPEN CO 81611 KLEIN HERBERT S KLEIN SH S JOINT TENANTS 201 N MIL 203 ASP O 81611 LARSON KARL G LARSQ.N M MADELEINE P O BOX, 8207 AS5�t CO 81612 LARSON KARL,G LARSON M MADELEINE P O BOX 820 , ASPEN CO 81612 GOLDSTEIN GERALD H & CHRISTINE S PO BOX 2045 ASPEN CO 81612 201 NORTH MILL ASSOCIATES LLC 50% KRABAQzJER FAWIET TRUST 50% 201 N MILL STSTE_201 ASPE�-aO 81611 201 NORTH MILL ASSOCIATES LLC 50% KRABA1644QR PWILY TRUST 50% 201 N MI 201 ASPE CO 81611 LAY KENNETH L & LINDA P 2121 KIRBY DR #137 HOUSTON TX 77019 KLEIN HERBERT KLEIN S 201 N M ITE 203 AS CO 81611T KLEIN HERBER S KLET?q-W A L 201 N IL-ST SUITE 203 ASPEN CO 816'M LARSON KARLZ LAR DELEINE P O BOX 8207 ASP6 CO 8161 S & A EQUIPMENT COMPANY SCOTT LARSON, GENERAL PARTNER PO BOX 910 PEWANKEE WI 53072 LARSON KARL G LARSnt+M -MADEtfEINE P O BOX a20T ASPEW CO 81612 201 N TH MILL�SSOCIATES LLC 50% KRABAC MILY TRUST 50% 201 N-W EL S TE 201 ASPEN CO 816 LARSON KART LARS@ALM MADELEINE P O BOX 820:7, AS?15N CO 816 f2 VAN DEUSEN EDWARD B & DIANA J FAM TRST VAN DEUSEN EDWARD & DIANA JEAN/TRUSTEES 233 N SPRING ST ASPEN CO 81611 DRACO INC A COLORADO CORPORATION PO BOX 8904 ASPEN CO 81612 GUPTA FAMILY ENTERPRISES LP 5711 S 86TH CIR OMAHA NE 68127 KLEI HERBERT-S ELDEN RICHARD & GAIL M HOTEL JEROME ASSOCIATES L P KLEINA L 2430 LAKEVIEW AVE - #115 PARTNERSHIP 201 N MttL ST STE 203 CHICAGO IL 60614 330 E MAIN ST AS+-g'N CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81611 GROSS GAIL M CITY OF ASPEN PITKIN COUNTY 2700 POST OAK BLVD #1670 130 S GALENA ST 7 530 E MAIN ST STE 302 HOUSTON TX 77056 ASPEN CO 81?'M,,, ASPEN CO 81611 CITY OF ASPEN CITY OF A EN LITTLE RIVER HOUSE LLLP 130 S G ST 130 S GALEN. T 1873 S BELLAIRE ST #700 ASPEN GO 816T1� ASPEN Ck7 8161 DENVER CO 80222 CITYKCO 130 T CITY OF SPEN , 130 S GAL ST B C S PROPERTIES BASS HOWARD - C/O PO BOX 5078 ASP11 ASPEN�CO,, 81 ASPEN CO 81612 CITY OF ASPEN WHIPPLE RALPH U & LYNNE C OBERMEYER KLAUS F 130 SST 855 GIBBON AVE PO BOX 130 ASPEN . G 8`1611 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612 PITKIN COUNTY CITY OF ASPEN CITY ASPEN530 E MAIN ST STE 302 130 S GAL�ST 130 SENAST �F-C ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN C�816 M- ASPE�1611 ZUPANCIS LOUIS J & ROBERT L 1/2 INT SMITH GAILEN B SCHAINUCK LEWIS I EA PO BOX 241 5750 D� AVE STE 206 540 E MAIN ST SNOWMASS CO 81654 LAKEW D A 90712-1468 ASPEN CO 81611 SCHAINUCK LEWIS I CITY OF ASPEN BANKERS MORTGAGE INC 5750 DOWNEY AVE STE 206 130 S GATEA4A ST 420 E MAIN ST LAKEWOOD CA 90712-1468 ASPEN.,PJ�x81614 ASPEN CO 81611 FRATERNAL ORDER OF EAGLES SCHAkUCK LEWIS I SCHAINkkCK LEWIS 1 700 E BLEEKER AVE 5750 DOVVNEY AVE STE 206 5750 DOWt4EY AVE STE 206 ASPEN CO 81611 LAKE D ,GA� 90712-1468 LAKEZIGOD CA 90712-1468 SCHAINUCK LJEWIS I GALENA PLAZA LLC ScH UCKlEWIS I MEYER LOWELL C/O 5750 D�bVPJEYY AVE STE 206 5750 DO EY AVE STE 206 LAKEWWOOD Ci�712-1468 PO BOX COLAKEWOOD A 90712-1468 ASPEN O 81612 MURPHY GEORGE W SCHAINUCK LEWIS 1 434 EAST MAIN LLC PO BOX 4146 5750 DO'WkFYAVE STE 206 408 AABC STE 202 ASPEN CO 81612 LAKEWOOD CR-80712-1468 ASPEN CO 81611 • SCHAINUCK LEWIS I SCHAINUCK LEWIS 5750 DOWNEY AVE STE 206 5750 DOWNS STE 206 LAKEWOO,Dr- 90712-1468 LAKEWOOD CA" 907't-2�-1468 OBERMEYER'KLAUS F OBERMEYER MARGARET H PO BOkV0 PO BOX 7848 ASPEWCO -BI612 ASPEN CO 81612 PITKIN COUNTY HIGBIE FAMILY TRUST 530 E MAtN ST STE 302 C/O JOAN METCALF ASPEN CCT&Ikl 1 729 E BLEEKER ST ASPEN CO 81611 KALLENBERG JEFFREY D J UND 50% RIVER PARK IN ASPEN CONDO ASSOC INT 700 E MAIN ST KALLENBERG SANDRA L UND 50% INT ASPEN CO 81611 401 MARKET ST STE 500 SHREVEPORT LA 71101 LANCASTER JOHN L III BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J 901 MAIN ST STE 6000 PO BOX 450 DALLAS TX 75202 RED OAK IA 51566 DORAN RALPH MCCUTCHIN GENE P 2600 WOODWARD WAY 14833 MIDWAY RD ATLANTA GA 30305 DALLAS TX 75244 BULKELEY RICHARD C & JULIE J ARNOLD RICHARD S AND KATHRYN J 801 JOY ST 1405 OAK FOREST DR RED OAK IA 51566 ORMOND BEACH FL 32174-3407 LAMB DON Q JR BAILEY MARCIA UNGREN GILKERSON LINDA 3215 TARRY HOLLOW DR UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 5640 ELLIS AUSTIN TX 78703 AVE CHICAGO IL 60637 BORCHERTS ROBERT H AND KOCH GAIL COTTINGHAM BORCHERTS HOLDE H 124 N SPRING ST 1555 WASHTENAW ASPEN CO 81611 ANN ARBOR MI 48104 KIDDER IRENE N TRUST M ALESA HOLDINGS INTERNATIONAL LTD 3928 UNIVERSITY BLVD KNEZEVICH RICHARD A - C/O DALLAS TX 75205 533 E HOPKINS AVE ASPEN CO 81611 0 BECKWITH DAVID E QUAL RES TRUST 1 /2 INT C/O FOLEY & LARDNER 777 E WISCONSIN AVE MILWAUKEE WI 53202 SQUIRES CARL E C/O WALTER R OBERMEYER 490 ASPEN OAK DR ASPEN CO 81611-2704 PITKIN COUNTY CAPTIAL LEASING CORP A COLORADO CORP 530 E MAIN ST ASPEN CO 81611 FOSTER MARTHA LEE LIVING TRUST 5000 COAKLEY BAY #N2 CHRISTIANSTED VI 00820-4561 HEYS DONALD R HEYS MARIE L 2495 ADARE ANN ARBOR MI 48104 SHERMAN CAPITAL COMPANY 5840 E JOSHUA TREE LN PARADISE VALLEY AZ 85253 MAESTRANZIBART 1101 N WESTERN PARK RIDGE IL 60068 PRIOR SHARON M PO BOX 656 ASPEN CO 81612 HUBBARD MICHAEL P 10503 SUNSET TERRACE CLIVE IA 50325 HOLLAND AND HARTA DAVIDSON J W ATTN PO BOX 8749 DENVER CO 80201 • HICKS GILBERT W & PATSY K REINGOLD ROBERT B INC 3674 WOODLAWN TERRACE PL 1187 COAST VILLAGE RD STE 1-116 HONOLULU HI 96822 MONTECITO CA 93108 COPPOCK RICHARD P BERLIN JAMES & MADELINE L PO BOX 44 22656 CARAVELLE CR DEXTER MI 48130 BOCA RATON FL 33433 EMPHASYS SERVICES COMPANY HOLLAND ANDUART 4400 N A1A #1002 S DAVIDSQN-�`�!V ATTN HUTCHINSON ISLAND FL 34949 DENVEERER CO 80201 MANN KATHLEEN A 99% MARCHETTI JOSEPH A TRUSTEE PO BOX 2057 MARCHETTI FAMILY REVOCABLE ASPEN CO 81612 TRUST 1526 FOREST DRIVE GLENVIEW IL 60025 GERSHMAN JOEL & ELAINE MARASCO EMILY A AKA MEYER EMILY A 120 N SPRING ST 653 26 1/2 RD ASPEN CO 81611 GRAND JUNCTION CO 81506 HOLLAND AND ART KESSLER SEPP H DAV SON J�ATTN KESSLER JANE JT TENANTS PO BO,$Z(49 600 E MAIN ST #210 DEVER CO-$0201 ASPEN CO 81611 HOLLkND AND,,HART RYERSON PHOEBE MASSEY DAVIDSM J W ATTN PO BOX 4222 PO BOX 8749,, ASPEN CO 81612 DENVER CO 8`201 LESSING GREGORY J BROUGH STEVE B 13506 TRAVOIS TRAIL BROUGH DEBORAH A PARKER CO 80134 599 TROUT LK DR SANGER CA 93657 RKJR PROPERTIES LTD MCGAFFEY FAMILY & CO NO C C/O ROY J MONK ESQ - ONE GALLERIA C/O JERE D MCGAFFEY TWR 777 E WISCONSIN AVE STE 3600 STE# 1880- 13355 NOEL RD- L B 8 MILWAUKEE WI 53202 DALLAS TX 75240-6653 HOL �NDND HARTHOLTZ ABEL & FANA DAVIDJ'W ATTN 169 E FLAGLER ST STE 1627 PO BOX 87 MIAMI FL 33131 DEN)A---R CO '8'0201 C7 SOMMER JOHN L 5094 A VENIDA HACIENDA TARZANA CA 91356-4223 FALLIN PAT FINLEY 600 E MAIN ST #201 ASPEN CO 81611 FICKE CLARK 15 W ARRELLAGA ST #3 SANTA BARBARA CA 93101 HOL D AND,bIART DAVIDS ATTN PO B QX4749 DENVER CO 80201 GREENBERG DEAN PO BOX 129 NEWPORT MN 55055 HURST ROBERT J 85 BROAD ST 22ND FLOOR NEW YORK NY 10004 EISENSTAT ALBERT & CONSTANCE 358 WALSH RD ATHERTON CA 94027 RIVER PARK IN ASPEN CONDO ASSOC 730 E DURANT ASPEN CO 81611 AARON ROGER S & VIRGINIA A 45 BIRCHALL DR SCARSDALE NY 10583-0000 VIDAL C A C/O REAL ESTATE AFFILIATES 855 WOODEN DEER RD CARBONDALE CO 81623 PARKS CAROL SCHULTZ RESIDENCE TRUST SYNERGY PARTNERSHIP (50%) AND ROSTAD EILEEN (50%) N 200 NEWBURY ST 3849 PASEO DEL CAMPO 601 E HOPKI BOSTON MA 02116 PALOS VERDES ESTATES CA 90274 ASPEN CO S AVEA S) 103 GINSBURG FRANCES GINSBERG JEROME D GINN JOHN C PO BOX 9961 C/O LANSCO CORP PO BOX 256 ASPEN CO 81612 575 LEXINGTON AVE STE 1600 ASPEN CO 81612 NEW YORK NY 10022 STARN STANLEY JOSEPH PITT MURRAY C KASPAR ALEXANDER GARRETT RIVER BLUFF TOWNHOMES C-7 2000 TOWNCENTER STE 1350 PO BOX 12061 155 LONE PINE RD SOUTHFIELD MI 48075 ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611 DALY GLENN A GUILTINAN JOHN F JR TRUSTEE RICHMAN MARK I DALY CAROL CENTER 12 RUE DEAUVILLE 26111 W 14 MILE RD STE LL4 0155 LONE PINE RD C-11 RIVER BLUFF NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 FRNKLIN MI 48025 TH ASPEN CO 81611 CREEKSTONE ASPEN LLC CITY OF ASPEN US POSTAL SERVICE 4545 POST OAK PL STE 100 130 S GALENA ST WESTERN REGION HOUSTON TX 77027 ASPEN CO 81611 SAN BRUNO CA 94099 MILL STREET VENTURE LLC ROARING FORK VENTURES LLC MOCKLIN PETER & MONICA M PO BOX 1112 557 N MILL ST PO BOX 807 CRESTED BUTTE CO 81224 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN CO 81612 PITKIN COUNTY LAY KENNETH L & LINDA P CREE TO ASPEN LLC 530 E MAIN ST STE 302 2121 KIRBY DR #137 4545 PO OA 100 ASPEN CO 81611 HOUSTON TX 77019 HOUST 7027 PUPPY SMITH LLC GA WOOD, JAN 205 S MILL ST SUITE 301A PLETT A. ASPEN CO 81611 POS ICE B03889 EN, COLORADO 81612 GARWOOD, JANET UHLHORN FLORENCE M HEATH JESSE B JR POST OFFICE BOX 3889 PO BOX 10832 HEATH HETTA S ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 ASPEN CO 81612 606 N SPRING ST ASPEN CO 81611 GARWOOD JANET FULLER VICTORIA B CITY ZF ASPEN PLETTS SARAH A AS JT TENANTS 1949 W WABANSIA 130 S G%C ST PO BOX 3889 CHICAGO IL 60622 ASCO 8161 ASPEN CO 81612 MARTIN MICHAEL S FULLER VICTORIA B FULLER VICTORIA B 4150 IRVING PL 1949 W WABA 1949 CULVER CITY CA 90232-2812 CHICAGO IL 6 CHICAG L 2 REIDSCROFT PARTNERSHIP TEAGUE HENRY B TEA��EN PO BOX10443 412NMILLST 412ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611 ASPO 816 COLORADO PROPERTIES LTD WIENER WILLIAM B JR MILL STREET MILXGRO CORPORATION TEXAS LTD PARTNERSHIP A COLORAD ORPORATION 401 MARKET ST #1110 1011 N FRIO SHREVEPORT LA 71101 414 N IV1JX T SAN ANTONIO TX 78207 ASPEN CO 81611 MILL STREET MILAGRO CORPORATION CITY OF ASPEN / SHEFFER DOUGLAS & BARBARA A COLORADO CORPORATION 130 S-C�EN:�E PO BOX 250 414 N MILL ST ASPEN _GF7 81 Tt ASPEN CO 81612 ASPEN CO 81611 / MILL STREET MILAGRO CORPORATION CITYQF ASPEN _ MILL STREET MILAgBO CORPORATION A COLORA—CORPORATION 130 S G T A COLORA�CORPORATION 414NMILLST,— 414NMILLST ^� ASPEN CO- 81611 ASP)<PJ CO 81611 ASPENIO 81611 MILL STREET MILAGRO CORPORATION HOROWITZ JAMES M A COLD O CORPORATION 110 E HALLAM SUITE 104 414 N MILLS ASPEN CO 81611 ASPEN GO 8161 MILL STREET MILAGRO CORPORATION A COLDRAD�CO-KPORATION 414 N MILLBT \ ASPEN `CO 81611 MYRIN-FREEMAN LESLIE D PMB 101 300 PUPPY SMITH #203 ASPEN CO 81611 MILL ST EET MILAGR9 CORPORATION A COLOR OORPORATION 414.W,MtCL ST ASPEN CO 81611 YOUNG DENNIS & ANDREA PO BOX 133 ASPEN CO 81612 VOLK, RICHARD W. SUITE 3600 5847 SAN FELIPE HOUSTON, TEXAS MILL STREET MILAGRO CORPORATION A COL O CORPORATION 414 N MILLS ASPEbj,<O 8161 MAYER HOWARD & PAULINE PO BOX 333 ASPEN CO 81612 BROWN RUTH HAMILTON 20% 420 N SPRING ST ASPEN CO 81611 225 N MILL ST LLC A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY CO 225 N MILL ST 77057 ASPEN CO 81611 HODGSON PHILIP R SEYMOUR FAMILY TRUST VOLK SUE J FAMILY RESID TRUST 1/2 HODGSON PATRICIA H 390 N SPRING ST 2327 MIMOSA DR 212 N MONARCH ST ASPEN CO 81611 HOUSTON TX 70719 ASPEN CO 81611 TA 0 PM- ° y� to I; y,.r• li V a� 'd y acy I ' = H y ^�. Id O c�3>�, � �-p�cy•�;�E Ea`° of 2 C V c ao a4° d 11 aEi -c° Ems' c o uo c.5 a OWN° cac�wAto ETV`�6y�$a o°3 c bg �.o E. E ��� c,dg $o °.S cif a Ew9 E4 c° ^ a a3 a O o V L �•_ J C C� ��,°� �'» ce wto J U > CO' uEi ub °i 3 w 0'-Cc CL o v ti-o �� ❑ ° �•o 0 C V O L+'' d pQ A_ .5 = V N .3 C U a°� o L 3 r3 c� C6 3 c.�° O wE =0 _ Qy_C.S.co iao�, N w "al 0 N y Q E•� �Ta.°-�,:9 EwA cw �e La O �3 E'b C b° y °'" y i v�0co°. 3� x o�.N gib a� s O N� C v�' � y° 3 E T00u— x?e a o 0 tEw c'•o c .o.?Q'c v g ca a LL Bob Blaich opened the special meeting at 4:30 p.m. in the Sister Cities Meeting Room with Jasmine Tygre, Roger Hunt, Roger Haneman, Steven Buettow, Tim Mooney, Ron Erickson and Charles Vresilovic present. City staff in attendance: Rebecca Schickling, Scott Chism, Parks Department; Chris Bendon, Nick Lelack, Joyce Ohlson, Community Developme7;-77-1f k, Housing; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. PUBLIC HEARING: SKATEBOARD PARK - RIO GRANDE SPA AMENDMENT Bob Blaich opened the public hearing. David Hoefer stated that the notice was received and the commission had permission to proceed. Nick Lelack presented the proposal for a 17,000 square foot depressed skateboard park to be located in Rio Grande Park by Resolution #21. Lelack said the basketball courts would be moved to an undeveloped area to the south. Lelack noted that site A was north of the yellow line and the Skateboard Park would be located on Site B. Lelack stated that P&Z and City Council approved the Rio Grande Master Plan in 1993 and that plan was a conceptual approval for the park. He said that any development must go through a final 2-step SPA process (City P&Z and then City Council). Lelack noted that there were no new lights approved for the park or any new parking for the park. He said there would be a couple of new sani-lets until the new Civic Center Master Plan was completed. Scott Chism utilized a colored map for the different zones, the yellow band was the 20-foot buffer zone necessary for the potential future use of a transportation corridor. The green circle was the future site of the John Denver Memorial along the river. The skateboard area was along the park edge. Chism noted there were 4 basic skateboard areas: a plaza space for the park proper and seating area, the walkway that accessed the general Park, basketball courts and skateboard park. He said there was a beginner skate portion and then elements in the Skate Park which become more difficult. Rebecca Schickling noted that the transportation easement did include the possible trolley line placement. Roger Hunt stated that the entire Rio Grande Park was transportation, which included the recycle and red area. Hunt said that buffer was An indefinite boundary and he stated concern for the area being proposed in this plan as a transportation corridor, that was not where the trolley would be but rather on the south side of that buffer area. Chism said that the "red zone" triangle of land was identified to be devoted to youth recreation (specifically for skateboard and basketball). Hunt reiterated that the original basketball court could have a 1 11 ASPEN PLANNING o APRIL 18. 2000 corridor for the Trolley around it and this plan just filled in that area. Chism noted that the proposed plan included all landscape and actual hard surface, which could be part of the original corridor with a 20-foot boundary. Schickling distributed drawings from the original master plan. Ron Erickson asked if the skateboard park would be available for in -line skating and if it would be snow -melted in the winter. Chism replied that in -line skaters would be accommodated but the skateboard park would not be snow -melted. Charles Vresilovic asked why the basketball courts were being moved. He asked why the skateboard park wasn't realigned to accommodate the basketball courts. Chism replied that they were trying to accommodate all the current uses with the passive sections being the Theatre, John Denver Memorial and the trail. Chism said the skate park would be a more active use than the basketball courts and noted that the lines needed to be longer than the courts with a smoother surface. Vresilovic asked if there would be fencing because of the hazards of the sport and an area for bike racks. Chism replied that the existing grade would be used to their benefit for the skate area and bike racks would be supplied. Mooney asked where the observation area was located. Chism responded there was a turf edge, street tree planting with a grass slope that went down 4 to 1; this slope and edge would be a great seating area because of the view from above the skate area. There was a significant beginner area with a significant deck space under the trees. Mooney stated that he was not in favor of any kind of commercialization of this area, no vendors. Schickling stated that there were no plans for any vending activity in any of the parks. Roger Haneman asked if the $100,000.00 in state lottery funds had any restrictions placed on the use. Schickling replied that the state had placed no restrictions. Chism responded that there were also private donations, they have made an application for a GOCO grant and have general parks and recreation funds. Buettow asked what after dark activities were planned. Chism and Schickling both answered that there would not be any lights because lights would be in conflict with the other park uses. Chism said this was daytime activity only. Jasmine Tygre asked if the 17,000 square feet L-shaped in -ground park was the entire park area or just the concrete portion. Chism replied that it was essentially (plus or minus) the concrete area. 2 • Vresilovic asked if there was a drainage plan. Chism responded that drainage would be accommodated with the engineering plan which included the landscape areas. Roger Hunt asked how deep was the deepest bowl and if water analysis of the area had been done. Chism answered it was about a 10 foot depth from ramp to bottom. Schickling replied that a water analysis was done. Jon Busch, public, stated that it appeared the trolley plan was not reviewed because of the placement for the trolley barn; he said this plan, as it stood, eliminated the trolley. Chism replied that the recycle center area was where the trolley barn was to be located and the playing field area was to be for the terminal. Busch stated concern for the trolley turn around in that area from an engineering standpoint. Tammy Dawson, Theatre in the Park, stated concern for sidewalk that the patrons used because it was being changed with this new development. Dawson wanted to make sure that the walkway was designed to carry vehicles for set -design, stage props and handicap access. Dawson said that noise was a concern during performance times; she asked if it was possible to post signs for the performances times. Schickling replied that the Skateboard Park was close to town with enforcement if necessary and that signs could be posted. Dawson stated support for the Skateboard Park but wanted to be assured that the park uses remain compatible. Alan Osborn, Theatre in the Park, said that they appreciated all the work done and voiced concern for the entrance to the Theatre being in conflict with in -line skaters on the path. Mitch Haas, public, asked if bikes would be allowed on the ramps in the Skate Park. Chism replied that the users would work out the uses. Hunt stated that he did not want to see this go forward until he saw how the rails would work. He said that he did not want to approve anything that might prevent the rails from happening. Erickson stated that he was a trolley lover, however he said that he had been a trolley lover for 20 years and nothing has happened yet. He said that he did not want any delay in this skate park because this was progress; the kids needed to get out of downtown in a place designed for their use. Tygre said the concern for the transit uses was valid because it was a matter of public trust. Tygre noted that a piece of land purchased with transit money was supposed to be used for transit. She said that if the land was used for something 3 • 17 else then it needed to be more of a public process than just a P&Z meeting. Tygre stated that the acquisition of this land was part open space and part transit funds; she said that many worthy groups approached the city for space in the Rio Grande park. Tygre stated that she was not sure that this was the best place for a skateboard park, given the history of the Youth Center. She questioned taking an area of a park and putting 17,000 square feet of concrete on it, even below grade, as such a good idea. She said that from the land use planning area there were a lot of questions to be answered and she said that she was not ready to make a decision on this until those questions were answered. Blaich asked, for the sake of public safety, where the Ambulance access would be located. Chism replied it was the same access as the handicap use for the Theatre. Mooney requested that a condition be added to include an overlay from the existing master plan and a diagram from the existing conditions from the railway and trolley designs, including the access. Mooney said that this would show no encroachment and the priority for trolley and transportation facilities on this property. Hunt stated that even with that condition added he felt that it was premature to approve this until it was shown that this could work. Buettow asked since this was purchased with transportation money, could the added condition include that transportation rights were primary to the recreational rights, and if in the future the public wanted to place the trolley system on this property, it had priority. Buettow said that if a study proved that the transportation could not work with this plan, then the Skateboard Park would have to be taken Out. Erickson stated that transportation rights are superior to recreation in this vicinity. Blaich asked Parks to come back with a plan that shows that this will work with the trolley, transportation and parks. MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the Specially Planned Area Review to build a Skateboard Park and relocate the basketball courts on Rio Grande Site B finding that all of the criteria have been met and to adopt P&Z Resolution# 21-2000 with conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Emergency vehicle access to the theatre shall be maintained. 3. Currently, the fire extinguisher demonstration classes are performed on the present basketball courts. The Parks Department shall consider a court surface that will allow for the continuation of these demonstration classes. 4. The Applicant shall relocate El • PRIL 18. 2 the existing conduit to the satisfaction of the Electric Department. 5. The Applicant shall install water facilities to the relocated drinking fountain at the entrance to Rio Grande Park. 6. A water spigot for the cleanout of the area should be provided. It may be possible to use the irrigation lines if there is no change in the back flow. 7. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed on site during construction. 8. Prior to Construction: a. The Applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for the removal of trees on site. b. The Applicant shall submit and the City Engineer shall approve a drainage plan for the site. Drainage shall be controlled in a way that is beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. 9. The Applicant shall provide a Trolley System overlay on the Rio Grande Park site plan to City Council, demonstrating how the proposed skateboard park, basketball court, and landscaping would affect the potential for a Trolley System. Transportation rights for Rio Grande Park shall be superior to all other rights in the future. Tim Mooney second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, no; Hunt, no; Mooney, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 5-2. Schickling noted that the master plan stated that the group realized that there other decision -making processes that could effect the development of the two sites. The group knew that a valley wide rail system terminating at the Rio Grande, ultimately a tri-county decision that could use a significant portion of the property. Schickling stated that she felt that was an underlying presumption of the property. Ohlson said the plans needed to be revised prior to council submittal and the overlay would be shown at council. 5 0 0 ♦ Specially Planned Area Development Review Rio Grande Skateboard Park Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Applicant: City of Aspen Parks Department 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, CO 81611 Date: March 9, 2000 • • TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Submittal Letter II. Development Review Requirements III. Land Use Application IV. Pre -Application Conference Summary Exhibits A. Resolution # 93-42 Rio Grande Master Plan B. Warranty Deed C. Vicinity Map D. Site Improvement Survey E. Conceptual Design Drawing F. Subsoil Evaluation Report by HP Geo-Tech • • Scott Chism City of Aspen Parks Department 544-3175 (direct) March 14, 2000 Nick Lelack City of Aspen Community Development Department 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Dear Nick, THE CITY OF ASPEN We thank you for the opportunity to submit this Specially Planned Area Development Review for the Rio Grande Skateboard Park. The Aspen Parks Department has the mission to construct at least 30 new parks and open space projects within the next three years. One of those projects is the Rio Grande Skateboard Park located in Rio Grande Park. The Parks Department is proposing development of a 17,000+ square foot in -ground concrete skateboard park to meet an unmet recreational need identified by the youth, young adults and parents of the City of Aspen. Rio Grande Park currently has a Public/SPA underlying zone district on the parcel and no variations are being proposed. Development of the skateboard park will occur this year. Construction is scheduled to begin mid -May (weather permitting) and to be completed by early September. Overlot grading activities will be occurring in May and the beginning of June which will be followed by approximately six (6) of concrete forming, pouring and finishing. Landscape work will occur in late July. No public restroom facilities exist presently at Rio Grande Park. This project will introduce two (2) San-O-Let enclosures that will provide restrooms for all of the park uses including the skateboard park. The San-O-Let enclosures will be similar in design to the enclosure at Herron Park, a three sided timber frame structure. Parking impacts will be minimal due to the nature of the activity. The skateboard park will be no different than the other public recreational uses that are currently located at Rio Grande Park. Currently parking for Rio Grande Park is available along Rio Grande Place and at the public parking garage. Public trail access is being maintained along the Rio Grande Trail and the lower "jail trail," used to reach the Theatre in the Park. City Council approved the 1993 Rio Grande Conceptual Master Plan, which outlines development of a skateboard area to provide increased recreational activities in the park. The skateboard park is being proposed on the parcel that was identified in the Master Plan for such a, use - (skateboard/basketball/youth recreation). One of the the goals of the Master Plan states, "retain and optimize park/recreational uses in this area 130 SouTH GALENA STREET a ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 • PHONE 970.920.5000 • FAX 970.920.5197 Printed on Recycled Paper and replace the active park and playfield only with a regional rail facility." Any future rail facility will be located in the playing field area as identified in the Master Plan (west of the proposed skateboard site). The Parks Department has developed a plan for the site that provides a 35'-0" buffer zone south of the Rio Grande Trail which exceeds the 20'-0" buffer zone outlined in the Master Plan. The buffer zone has been planned in order to protect the open space located to the north (John Denver Sanctuary) and to "provide site development flexibility for Site B" (land parcel south of Rio Grande Trail) The Parks Department has designed a larger buffer zone to accommodate the potential of future rail lines. The public has identified a recreational need for Aspen to have a place for skateboarding to occur that is acceptable to the users, police and local businesses. City Council has identified a central area located in a city park that is ideal for a skateboard park. City Council has also recently appropriated $50,000 in city funds and $100,000 in state lottery funds to construct a skateboard park. The Parks Department is committed to building this project for the community of Aspen. We request your support and approval for the Rio Grande Skateboard Park. Sincerely, Scott Chism, RLA City of Aspen Parks Planner • SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT Rio Grande Park — Proposed Skateboard Park A. General 1. Compatible Development: The site for the proposed skateboard park is located in an existing park. The proposed development will add a recreational use to the existing park. The youth, young adults and parents of the City of Aspen have identified a recreational need for a skateboard park. The Aspen Parks Department is proposing development of a 17,000 + sq. ft. in -ground concrete skateboard park. The skateboard park will provide a place for a popular summer season activity to balance winter season snowboarding in the Aspen area. The skateboard park area will be fit into the slope and be landscaped with plant materials that will both create vegetative screening where appropriate and increase potential wildlife habitat. The existing basketball court will be reconstructed further down the slope with an improved sun orientation. 2. Sufficient Public Facilities: The proposed site is located in the southeast corner of Rio Grande Park between Rio Grande Place and the Rio Grande regional trail. This central location will allow convenient access for the skateboard park users. Two san-o-lets with enclosures are planned as part of this project to allow for public restroom needs. The existing drinking fountain will be relocated to the plaza space that will serve as the park entry. The entry will provide a space that serves as a formal access point for the skateboard park, basketball court, playing field, Theatre in the Park and the John Denver Sanctuary. Significant parking impacts are not anticipated due to the nature of the skateboarding activity and the proximity of public transportation options. An electrical line will need to be relocated to accommodate the development, however, no other impacts to utilities are anticipated. 3. Suitable for Development: The proposed site is suitable for development of a skateboard park. The existing soils are stable and generally comprised of glacial till with some larger rocks. Soil borings have been completed and the Geo-technical report from HP Geotech is attached as `Exhibit F. The slopes found on site are not excessive and are stable. Maximum sloped vegetated banks for this project will be 3:1. 4. Planning opportunities: The proposed skateboard park has been sited at the south edge of Rio Grande Park to facilitate access and also to mitigate potential sound impacts to the John Denver Sanctuary area and the Theatre in the Park. The elongated "L" plan shape provides good skate lines as well as separated areas for users with different skills and needs. Park elements will step down with the slope to accentuate the existing landform. The park is comprised primarily of concrete paved basins that will be landscaped with canopy trees and shrub massing. View corridors to the Roaring Fork River along the "jail trail" and Rio Grande Trail will be maintained. This skateboard park will become an amenity for the Aspen area youth. 5. AACP Compliance: The skateboard park is consistent with the goals of the AACP and is providing a recreational amenity that is currently lacking in town. The proposed skateboard park will be a new recreational use in an existing city park. The proximity to the core of town makes it accessible via trail and public transportation. 6. Public Fund Expenditure: This project will not require the expenditure of public funds for public facilities. Restroom and drinking fountain opportunities are being added as part of the overall project scope. The central city location has convenient public transportation and trail access opportunities. 7. Slope Development: NA - Project is not being developed on slopes in excess of 20 percent. 8. GMQS Allotments: NA 2 LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: 1PPLICANT: Name: P, ► o a 12 ANl D l_. 5 K A- i � I!DO /+ 2 -C) Location: (Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Name: C t T-, 1 o V- Ar-, TEr V Pi4-e-i D P,44—I 'NV I Address: 5 6 5- C EPAETE-- L v. O S 1 (o ( I Phone #: Q 2..0 - S 1 2-0 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: lam' 65C;CCA SGE-1.1GkL)NCm ` SCo'7T C1-tt5IVY Address: 5 8 Clime✓ i itJeev 1. N. �S r�1`i , CCU g 161 1 Phone #: Q Z 0 - I 2-0 YPE OF APPLICATION: (please cnecK all tnat apply): ❑ Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devt. ❑ Special Review ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development ❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt. ❑ GMQS Allotment [v]� Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition ❑ GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation ❑ ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes ❑ Small Lodge Conversion/ Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane ❑ Lot Split ❑ Temporary Use ❑ Other: ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) -?LA P-) 61 c PA 9-. C- M A-51-64 P L *AJ Pow- 1 MW,- S1 T-C— CPM\9LeTF-'-.D i M 1943 De-GAIc.ONG 4PPAoRt DS USEV Rae 749 sin DIROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) C 6^-5+r tc-+r0h o f 0_ s Kg-+- oa rol rlc- d f Qva ri Df t;.itnr�ssed COr�Gr�2_ 'S't'r�-�u2.s `F� 0.cc.o►�ocic�_ 5 �-M{rss 0 f a. Ll l- fe-1 s . Nra jaet aa-t so ; ►ncldes +$"-f- ✓Z 1 o0,4-fon 0 � `riNe exj 54'e!� ba 5 �4-f ba U Cow. + a e-J t a- l ( . ATTACHMENT 1 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: jZ 1 D (512AN De, � KATs ao4o_0 l7 BAnaK Applicant: Location: Zone District: Lot Size: Lot Area: k I exc re S (for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the definition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.) Commercial net leasable: Existing: Al 54 Proposed: "�A Number of residential units: Existing: Proposed: M7 A Number of bedrooms: Existing: Proposed: al-4 Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only):!_/V/A— DIMENSIONS: NIA Floor Area: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Principal bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: Access. bldg. height: Existing: Allowable: Proposed: On -Site parking: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing: Required: Proposed: % Open Space: Existing: Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Required: Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: Required: Proposed: Existing non=conformities or encroachments: Variations requested: PLANNER: PROJECT: REPRESENTATIVES: OWNER: LOCATION: CITY OF ASPEN PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY* Nick Lelack, 920-5095 DATE: 3/9/00 Rio Grande Specially Planned Area Site Specific Development Review Rebecca Shickling, Scott Chism City of Aspen Rio Grande Park TYPE OF APPLICATION: SPA Site Specific Development Review DESCRIPTION: The applicant proposes to develop a complete skateboard park, consisting of a variety of depressed concrete structures that are designed to accommodate skaters of all levels. The Community Development Director has determined that this application shall proceed through the 2-step process to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. Land Use Code Section(s) to Address in Application: Section 26.304.030, Application and Fees; Section 26.440.050, Review Standards for SPA (Attached.) Review by: Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council Public Hearing: Yes at Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council Referral Agencies: Engineer Planning Deposit: 0 Total Deposit: 0 To apply, submit the following information: (Also see Section 26.304.030, Application and Fees) 20 Copies of the complete application packet and maps. HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff = 2. The complete application packet will include all of the following contents; however, some of the following submission contents will include additional requirements, such as 3 sets of 24" x 36" site improvement surveys and site plans. Specifically 3 sets of 24" x 36" maps shall be included: a. Site improvement survey. b. Site Plan of the proposed skateboard park. c. Vicinity of the subject parcel (so the Commission, Council and public will understand the location of the skateboard park in relation to the rest of the park and surrounding area. 2. A letter signed by the applicant introducing the project, and including the applicant's name, address and telephone number, and the name, address, and telephone number. The letter should also include (1) a statement specifying the underlying zone district on the parcel and, if variations are proposed, a statement of how the variations comply with the standards of Section 26.440.040(B); (2) a statement outlining a development schedule specifying the date construction is proposed to be initiated and completed; (3) a statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the proposed development, and what specific assurances will be made to ensure that public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development; (4) a statement of the reasonable conformance of the final development plan with the approval granted to the conceptual development plan and with the original intent of the City Council in designating the parcel Specially Planned Area (SPA); (5) a statement or paragraph addressing the Trolley issue. 3. The street address, legal description, and parcel identification number of the property proposed for development. 4. A Site Improvement Survey certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the State of Colorado, showing the current status of the parcel including the current topography and vegetation. Specifically, the survey shall depict the following: a) Existing natural and man-made site features. b) Existing topography and categorization of site slopes falling within the thresholds described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040. c) All legal easements and restrictions. 5. An 8 1/2" x 11" vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 6. A detailed description and site plan of the proposed development including a statement of the objectives to be achieved by the SPA and a description of the proposed land uses, densities, natural features, traffic and pedestrian circulation, off-street parking, open space areas, infrastructure improvements, and site drainage. Site plan at 1" = 10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed, and footprints of adjacent buildings for a distance of 100' from the side property lines. Show topography of the subject site with 2' contours. 7. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 8. A plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section 26.480.060(A)(3). 9. The Rio Grande Master Plan and approving ordinances/resolutions. Exhibit `A' Resolution # 93-42 Rio Grande Master Plan RESOLUTION NO. / � (SERIES OF 1993) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING THE RIO GRANDE MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council (hereinafter "Council) has been requested to endorse the Rio Grande Master Plan which has been adopted by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, Council directed staff to prepare a master plan for the Rio Grande property, specifically the area between Rio Grande Drive and the Roaring Fork River; and WHEREAS, staff, together with community members and representatives of community organizations, identified general land use concepts for future development of the property; and WHEREAS, a land use map was created that associates specific areas of the Rio Grande property with general land use themes and is incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, other maps were prepared and incorporated into the Master Plan to act as guides in ensuring that development of specific uses can be accommodated on the property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Rio Grande. Master Plan and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, development review for site specific projects for the Rio Grande parcels shall be reviewed through the Specially Planned Area development review; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the proposed Master Plan maps at a worksession held January 7, 1993 and provided comments to staff and the Rio Grande Group; and WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed the Master Plan at regularly scheduled meetings March 16, 1993 and April 20, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. formally adopting the Rio Grande Master Plan at a public hearing June 8, 1993; and WHEREAS, the Council has emphasized that vehicular access to Site A be restricted as much as possible while still complying with the needs of the park and Theatre; and WHEREAS, the snow welter shall be relocated as soon as humanly possible. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen City Council that it does hereby endorse the Rio Grande Master Plan for the Rio Grande property. APPROVED by the Council at a regularly scheduled meeting June 14, 1993. BY • ( l / John Bennett, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado at a meeting held 1993. Kathryn Si Koch, City Clerk TO: THRU: THRU: FROM: DATE: RE: 0 MEMORANDUM Mayor and Council Amy Margerum, City Manager Diane Moore, City Planning NZ11- , Direct Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner June 14, 1993 Rio Grande Master Plan - Endorsement 'IX SUMMARY: Attached is the Rio Grande Master Plan that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted at a June 8, 1993 public hearing. Staff was under the impression that a conceptual SPA master plan was being created for approval by Council. The City Attorney has determined that the document and related maps are in fact a "Master Plan" because the plan does not address development issues for site specific proposals. A plan that establishes general guidelines and goals should be used as a Master Plan to guide future development. When site specific development is proposed the full SPA review process will then be used for development review. Fortunately, a master plan does not expire after two years like a conceptual SPA Master Plan. The Master Plan remains in effect until it is either amended or superseded by another plan. The various organizations that participated in the Master Planning process thought that conceptual SPA review was being accomplished and only final SPA review (a 2 step vs. 4 step review process) would be necessary before their particular development. However, staff recently amended the Land Use Code to enable an applicant to consolidate the four step SPA review process into a two step review process, similar to PUD review. Therefore, if an applicant submits an application for development soon after the Master Plan is adopted and the proposal is consistent with the Master Plan, a consolidated SPA review may be appropriate. The Planning and Zoning Commission adopts a Master Plan by Resolution and Council shall endorse the Commission's adopted plan. Please see the attached Resolution adopting the Master Plan. CURRENT ISSUES: Staff has been working with a citizen committee, the Rio Grande Group, to formulate the Rio Grande Master Plan. The Group has recommended several land use actions and developed three land use development scenarios. Those three scenarios are represented by the land use maps provided in Appendix A of the plan. The maps are intended to serve as guides for site specific development. Based upon the Planning and Zoning Commissioner comments at the last meeting, the three "Potential Development Co Council Exhibit Approved , 19 By Ordinance _ RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 1993) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING THE RIO GRANDE MASTER PLAN "WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council (hereinafter "Council) has been requested to endorse the Rio Grande Master Plan which has been adopted by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, Council directed staff to prepare a master plan for the Rio Grande property, specifically the area between Rio Grande Drive and the Roaring Fork River; and WHEREAS, staff, together with community members and representatives o,f:community organizations, identified general land i use concepts for future development of the property; and WHEREAS, a land use map was created that identifies specific areas of the Rio Grande property with general land use themes and is incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, other maps were prepared and incorporated into the Master Plan to act as guides in ensuring that development of specific uses can be accommodated on the property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Rio Grande Master Plan and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, development review for site specific projects for the Rio Grande parcels shall be reviewed through the Specially Planned Area development review; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the proposed Master Plan at a worksession held January 7, 1993 and provided comments to staff and the Rio Grande Group; and City Council Exhibit_) Opproved 19 by Ordinance RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ADOPTING THE RIO GRANDE MASTER PLAN Resolution No. 92- WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") have the responsibility and the authority to adopt comprehensive plans for Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Commission and City Council rii.rected staff to prepare a Master Plan for the publically owned Rio Grande property, with attention focused primarily on the area between Rio Grande Drive and the Roaring Fork River; and WHEREAS, staff, together with community members and representatives of community organizations forming the Rio Grande Group, identified general land use goals and recommendations for future development of the property; and WHEREAS, a land use map has been created that identifies specific areas of the Rio Grande property with general land use themes, which map shall be adopted with the Master Plan and incorporated therein; and WHEREAS, three other land use maps have been prepared and included in Appendix A of the Master Plan to ensure that development of specific uses can be accommodated on the property, however, these maps are intended to be used only as guides; and WHEREAS, the Commission has formally reviewed the Master Plan at regularly scheduled meeting April 20, 1993; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Commission on June 8, 1993 to consider the Master Plan for the Rio Grande property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby adopt the Rio Grande Master Plan. APPROVED by the Commission at their regular meeting on June 8, 1993. ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chairperson George Robinson Parks Department City of Aspen CITY OF ASPEN RIO GRANDE CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN 1993 Prepared by: Aspen/Pitkin Planning Office Technical assistance provided by: Rick McGill • 0 CREDITS The Planning Department would like to thank those individuals who donated their valuable time to, this plan: Kirk Baker, Rebecca Baker., Sally Barnett, Fritz Benedict, Alan Bloomquist, Tom Bracewell, Jon Busch, Chris Churchill, Hal Clark, Ed Cross, Patrick Duffield, Jim Duke, Suzanne Farver, Andy Freeman, Chris Hall, Roger Hunt, Julia Marshall, Carol Lowenstern, Lance Luckett, Ramona Markalunas, Bruce Matherly, Jack Reid, George Robinson, and Chuck Roth. TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page Purpose of the Master Plan 1 Location Map 1 Process 2 Summarized History 3 Assumptions 4 Site A * Existing Conditions 5 * Map 6 * Goals 7 * Recommended Land Uses/Activities 8 * Recommended Action Plan Summary it Site B * Existing Conditions 12 * Map 13 * Goals 14 * Recommended Land Uses/Activities 14 * Recommended Action Plan Summary 17 Rio Grande Conceptual SPA Land Use Map 20 Appendix A - Potential Development Scenarios Appendix B - History of Parcel PURPOSE OF THE MASTER PLAN The Aspen City Council directed staff to create a Specially Planned Area (SPA) master plan to guide future development of the remaining "undeveloped" portion of the Rio Grande property. Council's intent for a new plan was to identify appropriate activities and land use patterns for the Rio Grande property. Council emphasized that all public interests should be considered in this new planning effort. The Rio Grande property is zoned Public with a Specially Planned Area (SPA) overlay. The purpose of a SPA overlay is to provide design flexibility for land which requires innovative consideration. The SPA allows for the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design practices and establishment of a procedure. whereby land that -contains multiple land uses, which are. considered appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a holistic manner providing for the greatest public benefit. The property is bordered by Rio Grande Drive on the south, the Roaring Fork River on the north, Mill Street on the west, and the Eagles Club/Patsy Newbury Park on the east. ki The Rio Grande master plan was developed as a conceptual SPA Plan. Following it's adoption, new development or significant alterations must be consistent with this conceptual SPA plan and shall be reviewed pursuant to the final SPA development review process. A similar process was conducted in 1988 when the Parking Garage, Library, and Youth Center were all planned and developed in accordance with conceptual and final SPA plans. In addition to characterizing the Rio Grande parcel as two separate but interactive pieces, this document summarizes the history of the entire parcel, outlines existing conditions, identifies goals for each piece, proposes land uses/activities, and makes recommendations for future use. The document provides a conceptual land use map that is a general outline for proposed uses. Three land use plans/maps for the entire study area depicting how the uses may be integrated are provided in Appendix A. The three maps are intended to serve as guides for specific development scenarios but were not adopted as part of this plan. Timing and particular needs of future programs will dictate which of the three scenarios, or another scenario conceived of at the time of final development: review, is best to utilize. The Planning Commission believed that final development of the property should be flexible and specific building location and building size should be determined when site specific proposals are submitted for review. Except for Site A, (which is identified as a passive park only with an art theme) the rest of the land that was purchased with transportation funds (all of Site B) should be transportation oriented if developed in the future. Unless a potential use can be temporary in nature, only transportation related land uses should be considered in a final SPA plan review. Specific development details, used to ensure that a number of land uses could be accommodated on the parcel, accompany the maps in Appendix A. PROCESS Staff formed the Rio Grande Group (a citizen_ review group) and began the planning process in November of 1991. The charge to the Group was to work with staff to develop the conceptual SPA plan. The Group was expected to identify critical features of the property that should be enhanced and/or preserved, resolve land use issues pertaining to the site and make recommendations regarding appropriate land use development. However, it was not the purpose of the Group to decide whether community -wide issues such as the valley -wide rail or a cross-town trolley system should be pursued. There are other decision -making 2 arenas that will decide the fate of those projects. Some of those alternatives were considered when making recommendations. The Rio Grande Group met approximately 16 times over an eight month period. One of the first tasks of the Rio Grande Group was to review existing and proposed land uses for this vital piece of community property. Initial meetings were devoted to a presentation and discussion of particular land uses on each section of property. The property was divided into two manageable discussion sites for which primary land use goals and recommendations for development were made: Site A: the area between the river and bike path next to the snow melter (page 6); and Site B: the recycle site (Old Impound lot) and the playing field (page 13). HISTORY This is a brief summary of the planning review history of the property. For a more thorough history refer to Appendix B. In 1967, the Denver Rio Grande Western Railroad began discussions with the City and County regarding redevelopment of their property and right-of-way. Since those initial discussions there have been many plans regarding this 18 acre parcel: * 1973 - The City used 7th penny transportation funds to purchase a majority of the Rio Grande property. * 1975 - A Performing Arts Center for the property was 1978 studied. * 1981 - A non -specified 1.5 acre site was set aside for a future Performing Arts/Conference Center and the City moved the snow dump for the Sanitation District property to the Rio Grande property. * 1982 - The City and County exchanged the Aspen One, Oden and stable properties. * 1988 - A conceptual SPA master plan was adopted by Council identifying a parking garage, the library, the Spring Street extension, a snow melt facility and an arts usage area. 9 LJ 0 * 1989 - A final SPA the parking library. plan was approved by Council for garage and the Pitkin County * 1990 - A final SPA plan was approved by Council for the Youth Center. * 1991 - Council denied conceptual SPA approval for the trolley, Theatre in the Park, recycle facility and snow melt operation and instead directed staff to prepare a conceptual SPA master plan for the entire site. ASSUMPTIONS The Group identified several assumptions with regard to the property. From the basis of these assumptions the Group began their review of existing land uses and proposed land uses. The first assuihption was past planning efforts. As indicated by the summarized history of the site, there have been many Rio Grande plans. Rather than completely replan the parcel, the Group began their review of the property from the perspective of existing uses and past plans. Secondly, the Group considered why and how the different pieces of property were purchased. Some of Site A and all of Site B were purchased with transportation funds and most of the river frontage was purchased with open space funds. Third, the extensive work on the whitewater course and initial regrading of Site A, has required adjustments to the traditional method of dumping snow on Site A. In 1991, the City Council directed the Public Works Department to find an alternative to dumping snow on the parcel. In response, the Department is attempting to purchase land adjacent to the County Maintenance Facility for snow storage. The site will not be ready for approximately two years so the snow melter is still needed for that period. The Group is confident that the operation of the snow melter, if adjusted, can continue in the near future. Fourth, the Group realized that there were other decision making processes which could affect development of the two sites. The Group knew that a valley -wide rail system terminating on the Rio Grande, ultimately a tri-county decision, could use a significant portion of the property. The possibility of the Trolley System affecting the property is also beyond the Group's control and is now in the hands of the Transportation Implementation Committee. However, the Group reviewed the two proposed land uses and made specific recommendations if the train and trolley were developed 4 • • on the property. Finally, additional SPA review will be required for site specific development and dimensional requirements and development details will be considered at that time. Depending upon how the land was originally purchased, future permanent development may require voter approval which is also out of the Group's purview. With the considerations mentioned above the Group reviewed the potential land uses of each site. SITE A I. Existing Conditions Site A is generally described as the land between the bike path and row of large cottonwoods that edge the playing field, and the river. However, it also encompasses the existing snow melter and the drainage pond closest to Mill Street. Please refer to Map 1. The property is 2.213 acres. Site A consists of the snow melter, and sand filter and sedimentation pond necessary for this operation. Traditionally, the site has also been used as a "snow dump" for melting on site or dumping into the snow melter. For seven years, the Aspen Theatre in the Park has set up its theatre tent on this site for live performances ,Tune through September. For the. summer of 1992, the theatre received a temporary use permit to set up a larger tent with increased back stage capacity. The Art Park group has been very active and generous in its efforts to reverse a trend of neglect towards this portion of the Rio Grande property. The group has rejuvenated the westerly portion of Site A near the Ron Karagian bridge and the berm adjacent to the theatre tent. The Art Park has evolved into a beautiful garden showcasing local artist's work. The Art Park and Theatre groups have been the catalyst for the City to reconsider their stewardship of this community property. They first rallied the community to enhance the riverbank emphasizing the river and park interaction. As a result, City Council allocated approximately $60,000 to excavate the high water channel, adjacent to the main river channel, for a whitewater course. As part of the development of the course, the City created a pedestrian path along the river and revegetated the river bank and slope of the property down to the whitewater course. The walking path is intended to enhance the river experience and meander along E the river's edge changing elevation as it follows the white water course. The path will not be paved because the existing paved bike path at the edge of the park is intended to serve multi -users. Finally, Site A is an important pedestrian connection between downtown, the Art Museum, Herron Park and the dense Hunter Creek neighborhood. The Karagian bridge, long been in place, became a strong link to the Museum with the Art Park revitalization. Map I - Site A Art \ Museum is / Spyh cFARLANE CONDOS �� - _ _ _ _ �� _ KO1ak Co \ ..river \ ' _ _ t `•�v'`-' ' ^ \ ART PARK jTE - • pubHc.pa •` buffer zone ,� .` �- -•110 .-.-. .` - � THEATRE � ♦ 1 � i • \ `� FACILITY j 1 B �. \ .� `�` �,�2 handicapped �. _ ation / Transportation �• •*%NI ` •` _ - \ 1 � \ NI � buffer i IG A I 0 • II. Goals The basis of the goals identified for this Site were the funding sources for the initial purchase and the unique characteristics of the Site. The majority of the Site is comprised of the Aspen One Property (acquired with Sixth Penny Open Space Funds in 1978) and the parcel the City traded with Pitkin County in 1982. A smaller piece of the parcel was purchased with 7th Penny Transportation Funds. The parcel contains prime public river frontage and was identified as a key piece in the 1973 Roaring Fork Greenway Plan. The Greenway Plan promotes preservation of indigenous species and maintenance of the riparian environment along the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries. The Greenway Plan also supports an extensive trail system throughout the "Greenway" for "maximum possible recreational and educational potential." The site is also an important hub in the bikeway/pedestrian trail system and is consistent with future plans to extend the pedestrian and bike paths upriver. From this point, one can go up or down river, into downtown, to the Art Museum, or over to the post office -retail center on pedestrian/bike paths. The following Goals were established for redevelopment of Site A: a. Develop a passive park offering a quiet open space for the community. b. Visually and physically connect the river with the park. C. Support the Art Theme connecting various art oriented elements such as the art park, Theatre in the Park and Aspen Art Museum. d. Discourage permanent development except for structures which support the Art Theme or enhance the edge of the river as a people place. e. Discourage employee housing as an inappropriate use for this site. f. Provide a venue for local artists in support of the Art Theme. g. Limit vehicular access except for theatre delivery/service and parking for the disabled at the theatre. h. Coordinate park activities with the Art Museum. i. Maintain pedestrian/bike paths throughout the site. 7 • • III. Recommended Land Uses/Activities for Site A This site is divided into several elements for discussion purposes: ]. Site Enhancement - The whitewater course is almost completed. The river bank has been regraded and recontoured to create more of a visual and physical connection to the river's edge. The banks of the channel have been revegetated and stabilized. A river walk has been established at a lower elevation from the park with the intent of being more remote from activities of the City and more restive for the pedestrian. A small bowl -shaped sitting area has been carved into the bank above the river walk to afford viewing of the new whitewater course. The sitting area remains unfinished. More dirt should be removed from that area to sculpt the curve of the bowl and reduce the steepness of slope so people can sit comfortably. However, further regrading of the rest of the site is unnecessary because it will eliminate the flat surface and inhibit park use. Irrigation should be considered along the slope for growth and as well as a water feature. Some revegetation and channel work have yet to be finalized, including the land surrounding the pond near Mill Street. Native wildflower mix and irrigation ditches will be integrated into the landscape. Other footpaths may be needed in the future and should be considered as park use evolves. Revegetation of the park shall include the theatre tent. The landscaping should help screen the tent's stored trusses, storage shed and wood.floor in the off season. It is important to note that the regrading and recontouring of the site does not impact the temporary use of the snowmelter or sedimentation pond. It does, however,. require an alternative site for the dumping of snow. The City has begun to accommodate snow dumping in other locations and is attempting to purchase another site for dumping snow. The Group has concluded that snow melt activity is inappropriate in the long-term view of the park. The snow dump should be relocated immediately and the snow melter relocated from Site A as soon as possible. An 3 • alternative location may be site integrated with the Trolley Barn, and/or another community service land use. considered on the recycle expanded recycle facility, transportation or essential As long as the snow melter remains in the current location, the existing sand filter is necessary but should be reshaped into a water feature for the summer. The edges of the sedimentation pond will be reworked to give a more landscaped finish. Both the inside and outside of the pond should be sloped to provide a more gentle finish and reduce the water depth. 2. Art Park Theme A strong Art Theme should be promoted as an important use for the Rio Grande parcel. The Art Theme is already supported by a variety of existing uses: the Theatre in the Park, on -site sculpture and flower gardens introduced by the Art Park group and direct access to the Art Museum. Continued support for the Art Park group's efforts will provide local artists a venue for their work. Art will be located in the park on a revolving basis and maximum flexibility can be achieved by variety of spaces. This is important to accommodate different works. The Art Park group also proposes to continue to maintain the flower gardens, sponsor and encourage outdoor sculpture, and expand irrigation and lighting systems. To ensure maintenance and management of program responsibilities the Art Park group must work with the City to define policies or agree on a contract. Aspen Theatre in the Park is a key component of the Art Theme. The theatre recently installed a new wood floor with an improved drainage system. The company also received a temporary use permit to put up a larger tent. This permit will be reviewed on an annual basis unless the company receives final SPA approval. Aspen Theatre in the Park runs from June through August performing four nights a week. Currently, the theatre plans (and is required as part of the temporary use permit) to take down the tent and store the support beams on -site at the end of the season. The wood floor and a small shed for equipment storage will remain on site. The shed will also provide locked storage during the summer. At this point, Aspen Theatre in the Park is not 9 • • considering a year round facility. If the need for a year round facility is supported by the community, then future development at this site should be reviewed at that time. Review should consider the proposed improvements, infrastructure needs and impacts on the passive park use. The theatre has often considered on -site housing for personnel. The Rio Grande Group does not support housing for theatre personnel finding the use inappropriate on this site. Housing would conflict with the "passive park" use identified for the site. In addition, housing in the park sets a bad precedent for other City and County parks. 3. Level of Activity - Other land uses pertaining to food or commercial uses have been discussed for this area. The anticipated argument for locating these uses on the river's edge is the creation of more activity along the river within the urban setting of the City. Food booths along the paths could encourage a more festive gathering place in the park. However, careful evaluation must be given to future vending along the river. The character of the Rio Grande parcel, although not void of structured activity or development i.e. the Theatre in the Park, should focus primarily on the river. The visual and physical connection to the river is the fundamental goal for land use on this site. The Art Theme and other improvements are to support and compliment the river as the primary amenity. Any commercial venture must not detract from that goal. Thus, small vending booths or food stands cannot block visual access to the river. Physical access to and through the parcel or use of the footpath cannot be diminished by vending operations. Potential impacts generated by these types of uses: vehicle related deliveries, trash, fumes, noise, power lines, must also be contained and kept at a minimum at best. Given the above constraints, the Art Museum appears to be a more suitable location for these types of proposed uses. In addition, the Museum side receives more sun than the Rio Grande side, a retail venture is more consistent with the commercial orientation of the Art Museum, and the Museum has the water and sewer services for food oriented activities. 10 4. Access to the Site - There is a service drive that currently accesses the site (Art Park Way) . The road will be eliminated and replaced with a 12-14 foot wide concrete pedestrain/bike path. The path may be used by theatre service/delivery and park maintenance vehicles only. The access may also be used by the disabled when attending the theatre. Two handicapped parking spaces, that will double as delivery space, will be provided at the tent. To alleviate the impact of only one access point to the park and to encourage less traffic on the access road, another point of access for pedestrians has been identified. Access will be upgraded, to include a sidewalk and gutter, between the .Eagles Club and the recycle site. A pull-out area -will be provided at that portion of Rio Grande Drive for drop-off. IV. Recommended Action Plan Summary for Site A To achieve the goals and proposed land uses for this site, the Rio Grande Group recommends the following actions for Site A: 1. The regraded site should be revegetated and ditches should be added throughout the park area adding water features and park irrigation. 2. Pedestrian paths may be developed in the future if warranted. 3. Pond and irrigation ditch leakage should be corrected. 4. The snow melter should be relocated out of Site A within two years from the purchase of an alternative snow dump site. 5. The sand filter should be reshaped for use as a summer water feature and more efficient operation unless the eventual relocation of the snow melter no longer requires the filter in which case it should be eliminated. 6. The pond closest to the snow melter (sedimentation pond) should be recontoured to compliment the surrounding park landscape and revamped to improve its function as a settling pond for the snow melter. 7. A small turn around for service/delivery combined with two disabled parking spaces should be designed next to the theatre tent at the end of new pedestrian/bike path. 8. The small bowl -shaped seating area should be finished. 11 9. Access will be upgraded at the path between the Eagles Club and the recycle site. Drop-off will be provided for access to Patsy Newbury park and Rio Grande. 10. A 20 foot buffer has been delineated on the site maps. This buffer is the boundary between Site A and Site B. The buffer lends protection for Site A from encroachments and inappropriate uses from Site B_ yet provides site development flexibility for Side B. SITE B Site B encompasses the existing recycle site on the eastern portion of the parcel, the access road down to Site A, the small triangle of open space between the access road and bike/pedestrian path, and the playing field. This piece of the master plan is bordered by Rio Grande Drive, Mill Street, and a row of Cottonwoods and a pedestrian/bike path to the north (please see Map 2). I. Existing Conditions The community's recycling drop-off center has temporarily occupied the eastern portion of Site B for several years. The facility accepts the widest variety of materials, and because of its central location, is one of the most accessible drop points within Pitkin County. The materials accepted at the site are: aluminum, tin, glass, plastic, newsprint, cardboard, low grade paper, high grade paper, green bar computer paper, and used dry cell batteries. There is a 20 yard roll off dumpster for glass, a 100 yard trailer for cardboard, twenty-five 90 gallon containers for aluminum, tin, plastic and all grades of paper and a small container for batteries. An employee of Pitkin County Public Resources monitors collection of materials at the site. Recently, the berms surrounding this area have been increased in order to shield the recycle activity from view, to prevent blowing trash and to reduce haul costs during the construction of the white water course. The access road (snow dump road) used for the snow melter and the theatre is approximately 40 feet wide. The playing field, which occupies the majority of this parcel, was established as a temporary use until such time that the field is converted for transportation uses. Other than the goal posts, and temporary recycle containers the parcel is void of any structural development. 12 • 1 • • Map 2 Site B 10 "'RUNG/'/ CAPS AUTO LIBRARY 1 1 lal 1 Iff. ' It \ ' cF `l•�`�--� Ve ART 1 - \ ♦ I • _''� /TE •� • \ a Prubft Pa r _ - •` buffer zo-•-• •- `s / . •� , ._ •� THEATRE \ � / \ .` '\ '\ �•� FACILITY j 2 handicappedUT EB s7e ■ 'ecreation / Transportation �� ;,• - buffer PARKING � / I - - possiblerecycle/snowmelter I _RTATION ,•��,� --' - YOUTH it BASS I OBERMEYER BLD . 'Ifti1/1j , 'alai ■1 rl IM�1 _ 1■ n /.1� •�� \ ```;ti\'^"�•w.��//-j ,�� COUNTY JAIL �fo. ssole recyc, COURTHOUSE 13 II. Goals Because the site was purchased with 7th Penny Transportation funds the basis of future development goals is transportation oriented. The parcel is also across the street from multiple land uses including the Bass/Obermeyer building, which is zoned Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI). Because of the close proximity to the SCI zone district and to downtown, a variety of land uses, including essential community services, are considered appropriate for this site. The Rio Grande Group has identified the following Goals for the redevelopment of Site B: a. Locate essential community services in the eastern portion of Site B. b. Maintain existing land uses on the accessible eastern portion of the site. Because of this-areaIs location and visibility, ensure that existing and future uses are compatible with surrounding land uses. C. Satisfy transportation related needs first when considering the use of Site B. d. Retain and optimize park/recreational uses in this area and replace the active park and playfield only with a regional rail facility. e. Preserve view planes to the river and Independence Pass with low -profile development. III. Recommended Land Uses/Activities for Parcel B This parcel can be divided into several different elements for discussion purposes: 1. Recycle Site - The recycling center is in critical need of an enclosed space for collection of material. Blowing trash has been a problem and inclement weather reduces the site to mud. Pitkin County Public Resources proposes to construct a facility that is partially below grade and will make collection, bailing, and hauling of material more efficient. Enclosed bins and bailing will eliminate unsightly conditions and blowing trash. Enlarged collection areas and more storage for material will reduce the number of trips made to haul the material off -site. Efficient drop-off will encourage residents to continue to use the 14 site. The upgrade of the recycle facility should consider relocation possibilities to City land across the street on the corner of Spring and East Bleeker Streets. 2. Trolley Barn - The Trolley Group proposes to develop a trolley rail system. The system includes a car barn facility, tracks and poles, and several trolley cars. Review for this plan only considered operation and routing which is suggested to occur on the Rio Grande parcel. Depending upon the location of the barn it can be incorporated with the proposed expansion and enclosure of the recycle facility or integrated with a future rail terminal on the playing field. The structure is proposed to be one story in height. This is consistent with the recommendation for low - profile development on the parcel to avoid blocking views to the river if the barn is developed near the playing field or Independence Pass. If the barn is developed on the eastern portion of the site. The building could also be designed to enable affordable housing on a second level. The Trolley Group cannot fund the cost of the housing but is willing to make the structure available for future housing development. Impacts to the river and Independence Pass view planes would have to be considered. Although the Group believes that housing associated with the theatre was an inappropriate land use, housing on top of the trolley barn may be more suitable if developed on the eastern portion of the site. The site's proximity to the street, S/C/I zone district and location on the edge of the park lend a more urban feel for a multi -use development. 3. Access Road - The access road to the snow melter and theatre ( snow dump road) is 40 feet wide. Vehicular access into the park should be eliminated. A new pedestrian/bike path should replace the existing pedestrian/bike path and access road. It should be 12-14 feet wide and could be located either next to the playing field or recycle site. It the path were located next to the playing field the eastern portion of the site could be unified creating more land area for proposed uses. The new path is intended for 15 0 0 1 4. 5. CM 7. pedestrian and bikes but the width can accommodate theatre service/delivery and park maintenance vehicles. Two accessible parking spaces will also be provided for the disabled attending a production at the tent. New Walking Trail - A new walking trail has been roughed -in above the snow surrounding the recycling lot. The trail should be graded and improved as a walking -path connecting to Patsy Newbury Park. The trail should not encroach into the recycle site. Snow Melter - The snow melter will be removed..from Site A. The current recycle site should be considered as a relocation alternative for the snow melter. Integration with other transportation/essential community services should be considered. Additional Activities - In the event either the Trolley Barn, recycling center or the snow melter are not built on the eastern portion of the site, other essential community oriented services may be located on site. However, a final SPA review would be required. Because transportation funds were used to purchase this piece of property transportation related services should be given priority. Active Park - Although the eventual development of a valley -wide rail system will require the use of the majority of Site B as a rail terminal, it may be years before a rail system is implemented in the Roaring Fork Valley. Therefore, the Group identified interim uses which are considered appropriate for Site B. Increased recreational activities should be installed on Site B. A full -court basketball court and half -pipe skateboard ramp can be located on Site B. The rugby field (390' x 2251) should be squared off to enhance the playing area. Park and recreational uses should exist on this site onl to be replaced by a regional rail facility. 16 • • 8. Rail - The valley -wide Rail Task Force has been actively pursuing a valley -wide rail that will terminate at Site B. This master plan did not address the rail question in detail because the decision -making involves a broader forum. Initially commuter rail would not require the loss of the playing field. Recreational activity can still be accommodated if the commuter and trolley tracks are installed at the northern edge of the playing field. A ticket kiosk, located next to the new pedestrian/bike path, could service both the trolley and commuter rail passengers. If rail develops from commuter to regional rail service, the rail terminal may be developed at the far end of the field thus preserving some open space for park purposes. The trolley barn could also be incorporated into the rail terminal to preserve space. However, the majority of the playing field will be lost when the rail becomes fully developed. A terminal, passenger platforms, and possibly three sets of tracks would be necessary for regional rail. The existing transportation center, under the parking garage, could be used for ticketing, baggage, and passenger services. The trolley tracks on the north side of the field will remain and a trolley stop will be tied into the rail terminal. IV. Recommended Action Plan Summary for Site B To achieve the goals and proposed land uses for this site, the Rio Grande Group recommends the following actions for Site B: 1. The City of Aspen should decide whether a City-wide trolley system is appropriate in Aspen. If the Trolley is approved as proposed, the eastern portion of Site B is the recommended site for the Trolley barn. However, the barn may be integrated with a regional rail facility when that land use is developed. 2. A height limit of one story should accompany any development on Site B unless housing is approved for the Trolley barn on the eastern portion of the site. 3. Development on the eastern portion of Site B should be screened from the playing field and Site A. 17 4. 5. The slope and berms on the eastern portion of Site B should be revegetated to blend into the park on the rest of Site B and Site A. Any development on the eastern portion of Site B should not intrude into the Independence Pass view plane. 6. The City and County should review the recommendations of the Roaring Fork Forum study relating to a regional -wide recycling program and other remedies that are being considered for the County recycling program. If the recycling operation is considered necessary at this location then the recycling site should be covered or contained and may be expanded up to 5,200 square feet. The recycling facility should be incorporated into the Trolley barn structure and/or snow melt facility, and should front the street for easy public access. 7. The access road (snow dump road) should be eliminated: The pedestrian/bike path connecting Rio Grande Drive to Site A should be 12-14 feet wide and may accommodate theatre service/delivery and park maintenance vehicles only. The path may also be used by the disabled to park at the theatre during a performance. 8. The walking path should be improved at the higher elevation along the slope that forms the edge of the recycle site. 9. The City should work with the Youth Center to develop more recreational activities on Site B.- 10. The City should consider extending recreational activities onto Patsy Newbury Park. 11. The temporary active park and playfield should be maintained on Site B only to be replaced by a regional rail facility. 12. If a transportation use is developed on the playing field, then an equivalent parcel, in the City, should replace the playing field. 13. A rail terminal and accessory facilities, if developed on the Rio 'Grande property, should be developed only on Site B. 14. Development of rail facilities should not block -off access, both visually and physically, to Site A. 15. The Youth Center and the City should build a full -court basketball court in the open space between the recycle 18 facility and the playing field. 16. The Youth Center and the City should install a half -pipe skateboard ramp in the open space between the recycle facility and the playing field. 17. The City should realign the playing field. WE • • Exhibit `B 9 Warranty Deed • Filed for ;:Pcord at �2 A.M. Member 17, 1973 September 745 Reception NO. 162368 �tecorder Peggy Attachment C STATE DOCUMENTARY FEF 1 ','1973 WARRANTY DEED fSEP THIS DEED, MADE AND ENTERED INTO this day of Se�e•„�u _1 1973, by and between JAMES R. TRUEMAN, individually, of the first part, and THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, a municipal corporatiorik •;�,. ' of the second part: W I T N E S S E T H THAT the said party of the first part, for and in considera- tion of the sum of TEN AND 00/100's DOLLARS ($10.00), and other good and valuable consideration, to the said party of the first part in hand paid by the said party of the second part, the re- ceipt whereof is hereby confessed and acknowledged, has granted, bargained, sold and conveyed, and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm unto the said party of the second part, its heirs and assigns forever, all the following described lots or parcels of land, situate, lying and being in the County of Pitkin and State of Colorado, to -wit: A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHWEST ONE -QUARTER FBTHE 84 WEST OF OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 10 SOUTH, RANGE PITKIN COUNTY, r EING 6th PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT AT THE EAST SIDE OF MILL STREET SAID SECTION 7 WHENCE THE WEST ONE -QUARTER CORNER OF BEARS N 38006'14" W 1542.42 FEET; THENCE S 56*06'43" E 120.33 FEET; THENCE N 33053'35" E 78.32 FEET; THENCE S 75051'14" E 67.25 FEET; THENCE N 84034'25" E 121.34 FEET; THENCE S 00017'28" W 130.87 FEET; THENCE S 89028'55" E 184.09 FEET; THENCE S 00058'09" W 109.72 FEET; THENCE N 16034'56" E 9.37 FEET; THENCE S 74037'51" E 141.49 FEET; THENCE S 09026'26" E 412.35 FEET; THENCE S 43010'38" E 89.04 FEET; ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT THENCE HAVING 233.41 FEET A RADIUS OF 309.26 FEET AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS S 64°56'02" E 227.91 FEET; THENCE S 03022'00" W 100.08 FEET; ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE RIGHT THENCE 309.38 FEET 409.34 FEET AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS HAVING A RADIUS OF N 64054'19" W 302.07 FEET; THENCE N 44054'27" W 66.04 FEET; THENCE N 75012'56" W 15.86 FEET; THENCE N 75011'28" W 25.48 FEET; THENCE N 16049'23" E 83.76 FEET; 0 1 BOOK 19 PAGE %46 THENCE N 73019'31" W 271.88 FEET; THENCE S 16037'11" W 90.78 FEET; THENCE N 57°36'26" W 10.54 FEET; THENCE S 84021'32" W 164.64 FEET; THENCE N 87031'46" W 88.97 FEET; THENCE S 14026'08" W 75.82 FEET; THENCE N 43012'17" W 408.87 FEET; THENCE N 19050'59" E 495.73 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING 11.496 ACRES MORE OR LESS. TOGETHER with all and singular the hereditaments and appur- tenances thereto belonging, or in anywise appertaining, and the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof; and all the estate, right, title, interest, claim and demand whatsoever of the said party of the first part, either in law or equity, of, in and to the above bargained pre- mises, with the hereditaments and appurtenances. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises above bargained and described, with the appurtenances, unto the said party of the second part, for its heirs and assigns forever. And the said party of the first part, for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, does covenant, grant, bargain and agree to and with the said party of the second part, its heirs and assigns, that at the time of the ensealing and delivery of these presents, he is well seized of the premises above conveyed, as of good, sure, perfect, absolute and indefeasible estate of inheritance, in law, in fee simple, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in manner and form as aforesaid, and that the same are free and clear from all former and other grants, bargains, sales, liens, taxes, as- sessments and encumbrances of whatever kind or nature soever; except easements to Klaus F. Obermeyer for sewer purposes, and to Aspen One Company for access purposes; all easements and rights of way, rights of ore extraction and rights of way for ditches as reserved in United States Patents of Record and canals as reserved in United States Patents of Record, licenses, existing roads, highways, ditches, pipelines, encroachments of fences, fencelines, BOOK 279 PAGE 747 buildings, any tax assessments, fees, charges by reason of the inclusion of the subject property in the Aspen Metropolitan Sani- tation District and Aspen Fire Protection District prorated to date of closing, general taxes, insurance, etc. prorated to date of closing; And the above bargained premises in the quiet and peaceable possession of the said party of the second part, its heirs and assigns against all and every person or persons lawfully claiming or to claim the whole or any part thereof, the said party of the first part shall and will WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND. The singu- lar number shall include the plural, the plural the singular, and the use of any gender shall be applicable to all genders. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said party of the first part has hereunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above written. a-- JAMES R. TRUEMAN Party of the First Part STATE OF COLORADO ) ) sq. COUNTY OF PITRIN ) going instrument was acknowledged before me this �3 1973, by JAMES R. TRUEMAN . M' rgr'18ion expires: j .. Wi O ;'rit hand and official seal. Notary Public E Exhibit `C' Vicinity Map IZ-10 GF-A Mt> F- -0 ME 0, I Rio Grande Park Legend Vegetation Buildings f '\j Roads f-"Ij Paths N w E S This map/drawing is a graphical representation of the features depicted and is not a legal representation The accuracy may change depending on the enlargement or reduction. C 2000 City of Aspen 0 100 200 Feet =566666 1:2000 Exhibit `D' Site Improvement Survey F 11as 3 K+ XISTING CONDITIONSjTOPwp Mc' MAP Or er }t 1'0- R� PARK <�"� lA - 1'� - A PORTION 0 F LOT 1. BEING SITUATED IN H � , THE �W -� 1, 4 O'I±ECI;ION 7, TC7yVtiSHIP 10, RANGE 84 WEST OF THE 8th P.M. CITY.:OF A SPEii; COUN`�'Y OF .PIRIl. }Z, SHEET 1 OF I RIO ua RAGiR \Yt CKLAh A rtAT Siva, • � _ P u 9 eANI V IsIGN cam• ` / . °` " o �/ ,NOTES: : F �Y; BArf OP 9/IRYTr' 'rBZfR"r a000. o, �. of DArd' 9P PRTPARA1TOAc• rT f~y a000 i �pqp 'v A&Vs aw smRYTY nrr RTcbRDTD PLAT Of R/O CRAADT SM61"S/6M; VARIOUS OT"A PLATS ! �cfESs Eise'tfierir, No GWADE F'- mO GRuoa - Siva / sus Lor 9 WEE sua GRAPHIC SCALE i Y SOPRIS_ EMXNEUVif. - LLC L.7f 3 :, F X RLf luaDl"m Asr'v TNTS L-0P Arm", .AND rmf POUND PROPTRTr CaMN *W&ATNTS AS S)TO.YN. I/ BASl.T O/ TLXYAT1&V TBd 199E C/TY OP ASPTN Aw'JJ''c BARRT6 carr"R aim& .! rff /S BAseD ov AZTYAT/cW OP 7780.B0' rNAFD /9BBf ON TRT NGP SfYf m *s /69 SJ BASf.S Or BTAR/NC,-. d BAAR/NC OP S 9I'/f Oa' T TN "71A TRT /~ C/TY OP ASPEN-dW MA7ROL ,YONLG/TNrs .R S' ALUAWVr CAPS Sf wpffo CPS P.GC Pf6JO AT TBS SlZrAr fATTRSB Mws, OP 6TR' /IOPdTiYS AND ff=7'TND I90PT/NS v mr 6rmom CO.*fI/7pONNS, it1H0pRAPRr .YAP LY NO .IAY RTPRTSTNTS A BDUiYAIRr X r/ Or TNT S DB.�dL7 PROPTRTr PlJR ALL AVIVRArAT/ON RTL:/RVINC A"TA2YTS, /PJCRTS-A--r1Y./ND1OR Tine OP RBCaw ST RTLf" UPoA' TRT fr"s "S1T.7 fN AY7TT S. GENERAL UTILfTY NO T ES. �TddLL��J�}}yy ' PL980T,4BR�ATOR/IfATfOA' PROYiDBD & RU n OKPM'!ES AND ACTUA4 PIELD LOCdTTONS IN SOIFB-lNSTANCdS. TH£S£ UTILITldSI AS 3HOON dNY NOT REP1tESdNT dCTUAL Fl����pp CONDITIONS. IT`TS. THE RA'SPONSlB TY OP THd CONTRACTOR CONTYr ALL UTTLfTY CDYPANL6S FOR FIELD LOCATION OF 7LTTIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTTON. 19L4PYTYORS SIVITAMVT I, ZW .0 AMMA R- DO RTRTDY STATT TRAT TZIS SfIRM' FAS PRTPARTD BY SOPAT AW67N "V--', LLC AVR TRT CffY OP ASPTN PARds OTPAR7MrTNT AND rRAT !r Lv J7POT AND CORRCCT ST OP Arl' BTL/Tf ./ND ANO,iLdOCT .IGRT S DAZTlT/P, LS. :'2Bf'�4,,i�/�7=� 4'u nu ILA 111111 CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 " MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 CARHONITAM,COLORADO 81623 (9701 704-0311 1t777, r.. s 4 EXISTING CONDITION\TOPOGRAPHY MAP OF: _ 10PARKj ��'' rnsnRt.Eoor SHEET 7 OF ai RTMF EXISTING CONbtY GN5 LEQENO' t-7est.. - - 02A2/2000 cxsraNO «oat REv9RIiso WALL ROARING FORK RIVER / K EUS11 V09p MICE CE G ow m?"r =_ I .F10STIIIC SPl1T 9AL :ENCE 'DatAGER �� E795T1MG v --_ — - Scoomw_ --JJ r� t�a57Nc EorE' I t 'trt.T' EtnsnNc GEaOuous rR¢ mot, _ • 'v RIVER 7e59.72' rl -� '-�-��_ - ^ /f �---___.�-�------���T'T-- _-�.�\� 0?J+Z/20o0 ya L6a STOW� A�¢ P" Ewsnrc eusN �'� Elu5nN6 EDGE OF VEGITAnON E t/gA„ "\ },A i• ,_,,,,,,5 fa - r 1?x `.'y` p1�y �eb� =.p \\ Y �p 1000 PDX TA" 1 -SCaOPF3i _ a _. \ • '�db, , \ ' 1 - �' ;1876 % f ( ,� ` rABIE !� ✓ r r `�� li /��• S �t! ! �I' / i '�\_ - 1�' \saw _ UTILITY LEGEND74 LIGHT STREFT DUSTING uNOERGRO NO ELECTRIC @® ` -' w--~°-- Ensiwc us V .. os sr9Ro" TENr sumarr v DMING. SEv6e Y . ROOT \ SmuMIRES ' . Elll^hf(. GIA"K MANN(LE �' >!KA on51N0 LITtrit WMOta- d ®• rTiTMf.OItAw 0E MMWeoEE 8U5 two u Q % rIV NW7?J ° (8 WIN TY0 J� PARK V y Ex -.le- OtP' - 7867 — t -` . OV-U1G POWER POLE. _���•� S_, , SOUASHW I R+ FDISING FYE N\DRANTSGOOPIER iB% \� �} i.'1� \� �S GJ_ - �\ •.�\\ ' _ ossTwG wArcxvi ]..r E)MING'agteSTOP �� . \\ �1 oosTeeG EucrwcTRArsroauEn =6,�'\ n �, EMMMG R1EPNow P_E019TAL `�' _ • cornea -et0 EXISTING LIGHT POLE / -- ---- 1$Q FpR AWIT°PAN - ORwLNE COTTCNWWS el 77. EMSTM CONCRETE .—/ Y' \ �-. `A, `�� (.. 5lOEWAIR•.(TYP.) \ \� - . \ 5•PIASnc PPE SPLIT UAL FIENCE NV 7eeaaa CUP SQUASmw VV IN. NY IN 5.7!1.927m.0 \ �T \ ..SCifWAIX (rYP) - aRPIYff (IF NV N E-lae9.t2 \ CaTiaVNOEtp$ 1 ,I,-��s ./ 1 ITBRIDGE RN-787910 NV OUT 7*9.94NY N-7117005 \ \ \ ` / �` v 14- PAC WE NVou 7eee.54' \ • STREET �� &: �� \;. GRAPHIC SCALE � mr. 700--�` s� f' � / A., • • � w"E!"Anoti mowPARK ..... ( IN rE3'r i f \ \- - - , , - -.z '� MA \ �.` \ ` \ LOA CIn Nu .ncn JO R - \ 11 Cf lxlCl act l /w 1 •: ._ .. 1�,; �.. \ SPUR RAk 1 WATER7g85' !-✓ , FENCE U. "'A 1 Fx-erwcw uA OTF V �. EPSMG r RW-78822G \ FOUNTAIN R GBNBRAL .UTILITY NOTES: NV. OuT-7e1194 I. TAB' 72M BASS Of O UNDFROROUND UTTLIT/BS HAVE BBN wV N s.-7e73.99 PLOSTBD RASED ON UTILITY lGP3 CONSTRUCTION OBSIGN INV. IN E.-7E74.04: �� M ryNS, OTHER I�yPO TMN PROUCO BY UTJ COYPA7V7ES - Nv - ]earls' AND' ACFVAL- FJBLD LOCi1TlONS IN SORB INSTANCE TAFSB`\rww souASN© ^-l=ryt7�i 5 N l CO UTT 'lTJB AS S$O#N .YAY . OT %PRBSBNT ACTUAL PIELD CO ONS. - !T: fS 7tAE RESPONSI@!/J}7 OP TAB CONT,q,�CTOR TO NTACTALL U!"ILIT CONPAN/BS POR F7FLD LOCATION UTJLJT/FS PRIOR O CONSTRUCTION. \ Rowe STATION � 111 1',1 SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC ELECTRIC V"'WU7- 825 1-7879,�78\� - _ _ _ =�M CIVIL CONSULTANTS NV.7W2.39 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 \ / CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 \ / -acx*a:.nais.aw.c.¢a (970) 704-0311 5. • • Exhibit `E' Conceptual Design Drawing '.} �;;;f` ���af � r ,: �r .+�^. � "�Y �i • ..gyp. �1 � AM' _ {57 ^.� i� �.� � / 5t(• v a r r �Q a } �iC r.:3='s - -. i� �:.. Y'�i'fi' A3 . kk" 91 KAN! AM a F fX " � �,,y�, lip ay i .}�•"'�� �'- PP 406 I,.,,. --41 � � `j� ! i � \�r _3-a-•®i �.5� ,.� ,F�n-'r>�� !S< � J _� � ,� J r / !/�/� � % �"^'"i' '►' ( I, �,.� i ��� �". ' ���• gym,-& t>�.. � ., � - .o .4��,►,.��'""'�"***.11lS � �� � • �� `a."i ,:r �y`^.'.� � r,;� r.1 bt- A- w ,1.0�� O. -A • Exhibit `F' Subsoil Evaluation Report HP Geotech City of Aspen Park Department March 2, 2000 Page 2 Field Exploration: The field exploration for the project was conducted on February 3 and 4, 2000. Four exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a truck -mounted Longyear BK-51HD drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Slotted 11/z" diameter PVC pipe was installed in 3 of the borings to allow for monitoring the groundwater level through the spring when the water table will likely be higher than it is now. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13/a inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. Subsurface Conditions: Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 5 to 15 feet of clayey to silty sand and gravel fill overlying relatively dense, slightly silty sandy gravel with cobbles and possible boulders in Borings 1 and 2. Drilling in the dense gravel with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit. The fill was underlain by medium dense silty sand in Borings 3 and 4. The existing fill encountered at the site contains organics and scattered trash. The depth and extent of the fill areas across the park could vary from that indicated by the borings. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content, density and gradation analyses. Total lead content tests were performed on samples of the fill soils. Total lead content ranged from 159 to 180 ppm. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 11/2 inch fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils and existing granular fill soils are shown on Fig. 4. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were slightly moist to very moist. H-P GEOTECH • Go otech March 2, 2000 City of Aspen Parks Department Attn: Scott Chism 130 South Galena Street Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 Fax:970-945-8454 hpgeo@hpgeotech.com Aspen, Colorado 81611 Job No. 100 140 Subject: Subsoil Evaluation, Proposed Skateboard Park at Existing Basketball Court, Rio Grande Park, North Mill Street and Rio Grande Place, Aspen, Colorado Dear Mr. Chism: As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil evaluation at the subject site. The study was conducted in accordance with our proposal for geotechnical engineering services to the City of Aspen dated January 11, 2000. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this report. Proposed Construction: The proposed skateboard park will involve cuts up to 10 feet below grade. The skateboard park will be cast -in -place concrete. The sides of the ramps will act as retaining walls. Foundation loadings for this type of construction are assumed to be relatively light and typical of the proposed type of construction. If site grading, construction or foundation loadings are significantly different from those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in this report. Site Conditions: The site is an existing basketball court surrounded by landscaped terrain including aspen and evergreen trees. The terrain is rolling with a slope down to the north. There is a rugby field to the west and a snow melter facility to the east. There was about 8 inches of snow cover at the time of our field work. Skateboard Park 1. Introduce Scott and Rebecca —representing the Applicaq-ti, the City Parks Department. 2. This is a public hearing to consider Ordinance # 14, Series of 2000, - the Specially Planned Area Review to Build a Skateboard Park and to Relocate the Basketball Court on Rio Grande Park, Site B 3. The Park is divided into 2 sites: Site A, which is essentially the portion of the park located north of the bike path; Site B is the southern half that includes the field, the recycling site, access road to Site A, and the basketball court triangle. 4. Review Process: in 1993 the PZ and City Council approved the Rio ! Grande Master Plan, which served as a Conceptual Plan for the Park. The Plan requires additional developments to be reviewed as final SPAs. A final SPA is a 2-step process, with a recommendation by PZ and final action by Council. 5. PZ recommended approval of the Skateboard Park by a vote of 5-2 on April 18. Qyo Wrmpzxwcx_ �-� s •".'�'t'`'`�'1-'`�'`" 77 6. I will b % ,fly discusg the Master Plan, C ents, and PZ's recommendation; Scott will discuss the site plan. 7. Staff believes the proposal is consistent with the Rio Grande Master Plan for the following reasons: Recommended land uses/activities for Site B —a half -pipe skateboard ramp is one of the identified activities. Plan's recommended Actions: (1) The City should work with the Youth Center to develop more recreational activities on site B; and (2) The Youth Center and the City should install a half pipe ramp in the open space between the -recycle facility and the playing field. �'e.Site B is relatively flat, contains stable soils, and no utilities other than an existing electrical line. This site is a relatively small area that will be incorporated into the overall Civ' Pn PrMastPlan, schedule to be completed by late autumn. The Civic Center Plan will address a permanent location for restroom facilities for this area. Currently seasonal san-o-lets are located in the park near the theater, public restrooms are located across Rio Grande Place in the parking garage • 11 and at the Youth Center. Two more san-o-let enclosures would be provided near the Skateboard Park for all park users. 11.The proposed park does not include any lighting or new parking spaces. 12.tV,y Council should be aware that any future rail or trolley fa ' wou located in the playing field area to the west entified m the Master . It should also be noted tha an does not designate a Trolle stem as the r the park; rather it lists it as one possible use —the ecifically states that THE CIT OF ASPEN SH DECIDE HER A CITY-WIDE TROLLEY SYS IS APPROPRIATE IN AS his decision ha not yet beeh made and will likely be further explored as�phe ity Center Master Plan. 13.PZ recommendations: 5 members voted for the project although they have long supported a Trolley System because no development plans have been proposed and may not be. These members stated that they do not want this application delayed because it will provide an immediate, needed recreation amenity for the community youth. Other members opposed the project because... 14.Approved recommendations that the Parks Dept. provide a Trolley System Overlay on the site for Council's Review. And a condition that transportation rights for the park be superior to all other rights in the future. The Parks Dept. will provide the overlay. Staff does not believe the condition is necessary because the Plan states that, "Because the site was purchased with 7th penny transportation funds, the basis of future development goals is transportation oriented." 15. Staff supports the Skateboard Park development because it (1) meets the review criteria; (2) provides an important community recreation facility; and (3) would be designed in a manner that minimizes its overall impact on the park, neighborhood, and respects the transportation use options have been contemplated through the years. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager J John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director --WO FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner \* 9 RE: Specially Planned Area Review to Build a Skateboard Park and to Relocate the Basketball Court on Rio Grande Park, Site B — First d� Reading 1 DATE: April 24, 2000 <� �, + ��IM# ✓ rL J� A.:. .- .% --••...5 -� �:-�-j^"y, ' r..'- mod` SUNINIARY: The proposal is to build a 17,000 square foot depressed skateboard park where the basketball court currently exists and to build a new basketball court in the undeveloped area shown in the photograph to the right. No new lights or parking will be added. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 5 to 2 vote on April 18. APPLICANT: City Parks Department ZONING: Public, Specially Planned Area Overlay REPRESENTATIVES: LOCATION: Rebecca Shickling, City Parks Deputy Director Rio Grande Park, Site B Scott Chism, City Parks Planner REVIEVI' PROCEDURE: Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) ReWex': This two step process requires approval of a development plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, with public hearings occurring at both. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval to the City Council. The Rio Grande master plan was developed as a conceptual SPA Plan. Following its adoption. new development or significant alterations must be consistent with this conceptual SPA plan and be reviewed pursuant to the final SPA development review process. STAFF COMMENTS: The City of Aspen Parks Deparment, ("Applicant"), represented by Scott Chism. Parks Planner, is requesting approval of a Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B. City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission endorsed the Rio Grande Master Plan in 1993. Rio Grande Park is divided into two (2) sites, Site A and Site B. Site A is located between the bike path and row of large Cottonwoods that edge the playing field, and the river. It also includes the snow melter and the drainage pond closest to Mill Street. Site B encompasses the recycle site, access road to Site A, the triangle of open space between the access road and bike/pedestrian path, and the playing field. It is bordered by Rio Grande Drive, Mill Street, and a row of Cottonwoods and the bike/pedestrian path to the north. The proposed skateboard park vi-ould be*located on Site B in the open space triangle, which currently contains a basketball court and open space. The Master Plan outlines recommended land uses/activities for Site B. A half -pipe skateboard ramp is identified as one of the activities intended for this parcel (page 16). Although the proposed skateboard park is larger than a half -pipe ramp. the proposed skateboard park is consistent with the Master Plan and conceptual revie'.v. Site B is relatively flat, and contains stable soils and no utilities other than an existing electrical line. Site B is a relatively small area that will be incorporated into the overall Civic Center Master Plan, scheduled to be completed by late autumn. The Civic Center Master Plan will designate a location for permanent restroom facilities for the playing field, skateboard park, theater, and basketball court. Currently, seasonal san-o-lets are located in the park near the theater. This proposal includes the provision of two more san-o-let enclosures for all park users. In addition. public restrooms are located across Rio Grande Place in the parking garage and Youth Center. Key skateboard park elements include the following elements: • The centerpiece of the proposal is a 17,000 square foot, "L-shape," in -ground. concrete skateboard park containing areas for all skill levels. Building concrete structures below the natural grade would minimize the noise and visual impacts of the skateboard park. • The basketball court would be relocated to the north with better sun exposure. • The existing drinking fountain would be relocated to the plaza space; the plaza space would serve as the park entry. • A 35-foot buffer zone south of the Rio Grande Trail would be created, exceeding the 20-foot buffer zone outlined in the master plan. • No new parking spaces would be created. • No new lights would be added to the park. The Commission should also be aware that any future rail or trolley facility would be located in the playing field area to the west as identified in the Master Plan. 2 On April 18, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 2 to recommend that City Council approve of the Specially Planned Area Review for the skateboard park with conditions. A couple of Commissioners and one member of the public, John Bush, raised concerns over how the proposed development of the new skateboard park, relocated basketball court, and landscaping would affect the development of a Trolley System (tracks and poles, car barn facility, trolley cars, etc.). Specifically, these members opposed the application because the site plan did not indicate how a Trolley System could function on this site juxtaposed to the skateboard park and basketball court; therefore, they did not believe they could make an informed decision. Other Commissioners explained that, although they have long supported the concept of a Trolley System, no development plans for it have been proposed and may not be proposed for the next 10, 20, or even 50 years. These members stated that they do not want this application delayed because it will provide an immediate, needed recreation amenity for the community's youth. These members strongly support the application. The Commission approved a recommendation that the Parks Department provide a Trolley System overlay on the site plan for Council's review, and that transportation rights for the park shall be superior to all other rights in the future. The Trolley System overlay will be presented to City Council at the public hearing for this application on May 8. Community Development Staff supports the proposed skateboard park development because it (1) meets the review criteria, (2) provides an important community recreation facility, and (3) would be designed in a manner that minimizes its overall impact on the park, the neighborhood, and respects the transportation use options that have been contemplated through the years for this site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B, with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Emergency vehicle access to the theatre shall be maintained. 3. Currently, the fire extinguisher demonstration classes are performed on the present basketball courts. The Parks Department shall consider a court surface that will allow for the continuation of these demonstration classes. 4. The Applicant shall relocate the existing conduit to the satisfaction of the Electric Department. 5. The Applicant shall install water facilities to the relocated drinking fountain at the entrance to Rio Grande Park. • • 6. A water spigot for the cleanout of the area should be provided. It may be possible to use the irrigation lines if there is no change in the back flow. 7. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed on site during construction. 8. Prior to Construction: a. The Applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for the removal of trees on site. b. The Applicant shall submit and the City Engineer shall approve a drainage plan for the site. Drainage shall be controlled in a way that is beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. 9. Transportation rights for the Rio Grande Park, Site B, shall be superior to all other rights %in the future. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B, with the conditions in the draft ordinance." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Development Application Exhibit C -- Referral Agency Comments C:\home\nickl\Actin a Cases\Rio Grand SPA Skateboard Park Amendment\Rio Grande SPA Amendment CC first read.doc 4 ORDINANCE NO. T� (SERIES OF 2000) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA REVIEW TO BUILD A SKATEBOARD PARK AND RELOCATE THE EXISTING BASKETBALL COURT ON RIO GRANDE PARK, SITE B, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-073-06-851 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen Parks Department for a Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park. Site B: and. WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 42, Series of 1993 approved the Rio Grande Master Plan; and. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Rio Grande Master Plan and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, development review for site specific projects for the Rio Grande parcels shall be reviewed through the Specially Planned Area development review, and. WHEREAS, the Rio Grande Master Plan identifies a half -pipe skateboard ramp can be located on Rio Grande Park, Site B: and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440 of the Land Use Code, City Council may approve a Specially Planned Area Review during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies. and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 18. 2000. the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a five to two (5-2) vote. approval of a Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B, with conditions contained herein; and, WHEREAS, the Fire Marshall, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City Water Department, City Engineering, and the Community Development Department reviewed the Project and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council 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 Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, V1'HEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal. lAith conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan: and. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 The Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B, is approved with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Emergency vehicle access to the theatre shall be maintained. Currently, the fire extinguisher demonstration classes are performed on the present basketball courts. The Parks Department shall consider a court surface that will allow for the continuation of these demonstration classes. 4. The Applicant shall relocate the existing conduit to the satisfaction of the Electric Department. 5. The Applicant shall install water facilities to the relocated drinking fountain at the entrance to Rio Grande Park. 6. A water spigot for the cleanout of the area should be provided. It may be possible to use the irrigation lines if there is no change in the back flow. 7. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed on site during construction. 8. Prior to Construction: a. The Applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for the removal of trees on site. b. The Applicant shall submit and the City Engineer shall approve a drainage plan for the site. Drainage shall be controlled in a way that is beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. Section 2• 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 or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. • • Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect 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• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of April, 2000. Attest: Kathn•n S. Koch, City Clerk Rachel Richards, Mayor FINALLY, adopted. passed and approved this 8"' day of May. 2000. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, Cite Clerk Approved as to form: John Worcestor, City Attorney Rachel Richards, Mayor EXHIBIT A Rio GRANDE SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA REVIEW REN'IEVI' CRITERIA $ STAFF FINDINGS 26.440.050. Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terns of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Staff Finding Staff is of the opinion that the proposed skateboard park is compatible with and enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. The proposed development would be located in the Rio Grande Park. The skateboard park would enhance the mix of recreation activities in and around the park, which include a large playing field, basketball court, bike/pedestrian paths, and fly fishing in the Roaring Fork River. A wide -range of land uses exist in the immediate vicinity, including civic, institutional, commercial, office, recreational, retail, and light industrial uses. This development would add to the eclectic mix of uses in and around the area. The proposal is to build depressed concrete structures. The height, bulk and architecture are compatible with the park and its surroundings. Landscaping "will be provided to create a "canopy effect" around the depressed structures, and open space will be maintained to the greatest extent practicable. A half -pipe skateboard ramp is identified as one of the activities intended for this parcel in the Rio Grande Master Plan. Although the proposed skateboard consists of more structures than a half -pipe ramp, the structures are depressed. The proposed development is consistent with the Rio Grande Master Plan and conceptual review approval. This criterion is addressed. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Staff Finding Adequate roads exist to service the proposed skateboard park. Access to this park feature is provided by Rio Grande Place as well as the stairs connecting Rio Grande Place to Galena Street. RFTA and the Galena Street Shuttle service this area. Currently. seasonal san-o-lets are located in the park near the theater. This proposal includes the provision of two more san-o-let enclosures for all park users. In addition. public restrooms are located across Rio Grande Place in the parking garage and Youth Center. The Civic Center Master Plan will designate a location for permanent restroom facilities for the playing field, skateboard park, theater, and basketball court. The existing drinking fountain would be relocated to a new plaza serving as the park's entrance. An existing conduit, or electrical line, would be relocated as part of this development. Parking impacts are not expected to be significant since the nature of skateboarding is transportation and recreation, it is likely that skateboarders will arrive at the park on their skateboards, by bus, or on foot. This criterion is addressed. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generall}, suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instabilih' and the possihilit}, of mud flow, rockfalls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff Finding Staff believes Site B is suitable for the development of a skateboard park. The Applicant has stated that the soils are stable and has provided a Geo-technical report documenting this finding. This site is not susceptible to mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers, or flood hazards. This criterion is met. 4. Whether the proposed development creativel}• emploj-s land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Staff Finding Staff believes the proposed development employs exceptional land planning techniques in this design. Depressing the concrete structures preserves all view planes. avoids adverse environmental impacts. and minimizes potential visual and noise impacts. The design also preserves open space. trails. and all park amenities for users and the public at large. In addition, the basketball court would be relocated to maximize sun exposure. and new park amenities would be provided, including the skateboard park and more san-o- lets. And, the provision of a 35-foot buffer from the Rio Grande Trail exceeds the 20- foot recommendation in the Master Plan. Further, the proposal provides structures for skateboarders of all levels, and separates the beginners from the experts for safety and enjoyment reasons. This criterion is met. S. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Although the AACP does not address expanding recreational opportunities in town. the location of the proposed skateboard park is consistent with many AACP goals. For example. the park is located in the center of town, making it accessible by alternative 2 modes of transportation such as by bus, bike, skateboard, or on foot. The plan also calls for creating mixed use developments. and this park will enhance the variety of land uses that already exist on Rio Grande Park and in the immediate vicinity. Staff believes this criterion is addressed. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Finding Staff does not believe the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. City Council has appropriated funds for all aspects of the project out of the Parks Department budget. This criterion is addressed. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenny (20) percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040(B) (2). Staff Finding The slopes do not exceed 20%; this criterion is not applicable. 8. Whether there are sufficient GAfQS allotments for the proposed development. Staff Finding No GMQS allotments are required for this project; this criterion is not applicable. • • MEMORANDUM To: Nick Lelack, Planner From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: April 6, 2000 Re: Rio Grande Skateboard Park SPA Amendment The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Holy Cross Rezoning and PUD application at their March 29, 2000 meeting, and has compiled the following comments: General 1. Sufficiencv of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features. and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." 2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights -of -way. the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. CItP RPV1Plu 1. Site Drainage — Requirement — A drainage report was not submitted with the application. The site development approvals must include the requirement meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.580.020.A.6.a and a requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan (24"06" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well below depth of frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be placed within public right of way or utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site. and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for building permit. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm. Information — The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented. This includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow and what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow. 2. Community Development — Information — The following request was provided by the Planning Department: a. Real bathrooms instead of san-o-lets would highly be desired. b. If no bathroom facilities are placed, then preparing for future bathrooms will be beneficial. c. Recreation classes for skateboard instruction would be beneficial. 3. Fire Protection District — Information — The following information has been provided by the Aspen Fire Protection District: a. Emergency vehicle access to the theatre needs to be maintained. b. Currently the fire extinguisher demo is performed on the present basketball courts. This needs to be taken in consideration while designing the surface for a new court. 4. Streets Department — Requirement - As of the request of the Streets Department revisions need to be made as follows: a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 5. Parks — Requirement — The following information has been provided by the Parks Department: a. A tree removal permit will be required. 6. Engineering — Information — The following requirements have been provided by the Engineering Department: a. There will be a lot of drainage that needs to be controlled. Therefore it would be beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. 7. Utilities: - Water: City Water Department - Information — The following information was given by the City of Aspen Water Department: a. Water facilities to the drinking fountain will have to be installed. C7 b. A water spigot for the cleanout of the area would be desirable and would need to have lines properly installed. It may be possible to use the irrigation lines if there is no change in the back flow. c. Lines should be placed for future plans of building bathrooms. 14 asteii�ater: Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Information — As a request of the Consolidated Waste District, revisions need to be made as follows: a. A set of drainage plans needs to be provided to Peg at ACSD so that an estimate of fees can be processed. Electric: Cite of Aspen Electric Department — Information — As a request of the Electric department, the following items should be noted: a. There is a conduit that would have to be moved before digging of the deeper bowl areas. b. Other conduit needs to be installed now for future expansion. C0)1st1-Ucti0)7: Work in the Public Right of Way - Requirement — Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: Approvals 1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department (920-5080) for design of improvements. including grading. drainage. transportation/streets. landscaping. and encroachments within public right of way. 2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920- 5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance. 3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920- 5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets. and alleyways. 4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department. • DRC Attendees .7 Staff: Mark O'Meara Ed Van Vl'alraven Ben Ludlow Nick Adeh John Krueger Joyce Ohlson Tom Bracewell Nick Lelack Scott Chism Julie Ann Woods Tom Bracewell Applicant's Representative: Parks Dept. 4 MEMORANDUM V, 4� TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directorl� FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner RE: Specially Planned Area Review to Build a Skateboard Park and to Relocate the Basketball Court on Rio Grande Park, Site B — First Reading DATE: April 24, 2000 SUMMARY: The proposal is to build a 17,000 square foot depressed skateboard park where the basketball court currently exists and to build a new basketball court in the undeveloped area shown in the photograph to the right. No new lights or parking will be added. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a 5 to 2 vote on April 18. APPLICANT: City Parks Department ZONING: Public, Specially Planned Area Overlay REPRESENTATIVES: LOCATION: Rebecca Shickling, City Parks Deputy Director Rio Grande Park, Site B Scott Chism, City Parks Planner REVIEW PROCEDURE: Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Review: This two step process requires approval of a development plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, with public hearings occurring at both. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval to the City Council. The Rio Grande master plan was developed as a conceptual SPA Plan. Following its adoption, new development or significant alterations must be consistent with this conceptual SPA plan and be reviewed pursuant to the final SPA development review process. F__� i STAFF COMMENTS: The City of Aspen Parks Deparment, ("Applicant"), represented by Scott Chism, Parks Planner, is requesting approval of a Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B. City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission endorsed the Rio Grande Master Plan in 1993. Rio Grande Park is divided into two (2) sites, Site A and Site B. Site A is located between the bike path and row of large Cottonwoods that edge the playing field, and the river. It also includes the snow melter and the drainage pond closest to Mill Street. Site B encompasses the recycle site, access road to Site A, the triangle of open space between the access road and bike/pedestrian path, and the playing field. It is bordered by Rio Grande Drive, Mill Street, and a row of Cottonwoods and the bike/pedestrian path to the north. The proposed skateboard park would be'located on Site B in the open space triangle, which currently contains a basketball court and open space. The Master Plan outlines recommended land uses/activities for Site B. A half -pipe skateboard ramp is identified as one of the activities intended for this parcel (page 16). Although the proposed skateboard park is larger than a half -pipe ramp, the proposed skateboard park is consistent with the Master Plan and conceptual review. Site B is relatively flat, and contains stable soils and no utilities other than an existing electrical line. Site B is a relatively small area that will be incorporated into the overall Civic Center Master Plan, scheduled to be completed by late autumn. The Civic Center Master Plan will designate a location for permanent restroom facilities for the playing field, skateboard park, theater, and basketball court. Currently, seasonal san-o-lets are located in the park near the theater. This proposal includes the provision of two more san-o-let enclosures for all park users. In addition, public restrooms are located across Rio Grande Place in the parking garage and Youth Center. Key skateboard park elements include the following elements: • The centerpiece of the proposal is a 17,000 square foot, "L-shape," in -ground, concrete skateboard park containing areas for all skill levels. Building concrete structures below the natural grade would minimize the noise and visual impacts of the skateboard park. • The basketball court would be relocated to the north with better sun exposure. • The existing drinking fountain would be relocated to the plaza space; the plaza space would serve as the park entry. • A 35-foot buffer zone south of the Rio Grande Trail would be created, exceeding the 20-foot buffer zone outlined in the master plan. • No new parking spaces would be created. • No new lights would be added to the park. The Commission should also be aware that any future rail or trolley facility would be located in the playing field area to the west as identified in the Master Plan. 2 On April 18, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 2 to recommend that City Council approve of the Specially Planned Area Review for the skateboard park with conditions. A couple of Commissioners and one member of the public, John Bush, raised concerns over how the proposed development of the new skateboard park, relocated basketball court, and landscaping would affect the development of a Trolley System (tracks and poles, car barn facility, trolley cars, etc.). Specifically, these members opposed the application because the site plan did not indicate how a Trolley System could function on this site juxtaposed to the skateboard park and basketball court; therefore, they did not believe they could make an informed decision. Other Commissioners explained that, although they have long supported the concept of a Trolley System, no development plans for it have been proposed and may not be proposed for the next 10, 20, or even 50 years. These members stated that they do not want this application delayed because it will provide an immediate, needed recreation amenity for the community's youth. These members strongly support the application. The Commission approved a recommendation that the Parks Department provide a Trolley System overlay on the site plan for Council's review, and that transportation rights for the park shall be superior to all other rights in the future. The Trolley System overlay will be presented to City Council at the public hearing for this application on May 8. Community Development Staff supports the proposed skateboard park development because it (1) meets the review criteria, (2) provides an important community recreation facility, and (3) would be designed in a manner that minimizes its overall impact on the park, the neighborhood, and respects the transportation use options that have been contemplated through the years for this site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B, with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Emergency vehicle access to the theatre shall be maintained. 3. Currently, the fire extinguisher demonstration classes are performed on the present basketball courts. The Parks Department shall consider a court surface that will allow for the continuation of these demonstration classes. 4. The Applicant shall relocate the existing conduit to the satisfaction of the Electric Department. 5. The Applicant shall install water facilities to the relocated drinking fountain at the entrance to Rio Grande Park. 6. A water spigot for the cleanout of the area should be provided. It may be possible to use the irrigation lines if there is no change in the back flow. 7. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed on site during construction. 8. Prior to Construction: a. The Applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for the removal of trees on site. b. The Applicant shall submit and the City Engineer shall approve a drainage plan for the site. Drainage shall be controlled in a way that is beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. 9. Transportation rights for the Rio Grande Park, Site B, shall be superior to all other rights in the future. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B, with the conditions in the draft ordinance." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Development Application Exhibit C -- Referral Agency Comments C:\home\nickhActive Cases\Rio Grand SPA Skateboard Park Amendment\Rio Grande SPA Amendment CC first read.doc 0 ORDINANCE NO. A-� (SERIES OF 2000) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA REVIEW TO BUILD A SKATEBOARD PARK AND RELOCATE THE EXISTING BASKETBALL COURT ON RIO GRANDE PARK, SITE B, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-073-06-851 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen Parks Department for a Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B; and, WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 42, Series of 1993 approved the Rio Grande Master Plan; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the Rio Grande Master Plan and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, development review for site specific projects for the Rio Grande parcels shall be reviewed through the Specially Planned Area development review; and, WHEREAS, the Rio Grande Master Plan identifies a half -pipe skateboard ramp can be located on Rio Grande Park, Site B; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440 of the Land Use Code, City Council may approve a Specially Planned Area Review during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a five to two (5-2) vote, approval of a Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B, with conditions contained herein; and, WHEREAS, the Fire Marshall, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City Water Department, City Engineering, and the Community Development Department reviewed the Project and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council 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 Planning and Zoning Commission, the Community Development Director, the applicable referral agencies, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1 The Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B, is approved with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Emergency vehicle access to the theatre shall be maintained. Currently, the fire extinguisher demonstration classes are performed on the present basketball courts. The Parks Department shall consider a court surface that will allow for the continuation of these demonstration classes. 4. The Applicant shall relocate the existing conduit to the satisfaction of the Electric Department. 5. The Applicant shall install water facilities to the relocated drinking fountain at the entrance to Rio Grande Park. 6. A water spigot for the cleanout of the area should be provided. It may be possible to use the irrigation lines if there is no change in the back flow. 7. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed on site during construction. 8. Prior to Construction: a. The Applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for the removal of trees on site. b. The Applicant shall submit and the City Engineer shall approve a drainage plan for the site. Drainage shall be controlled in a way that is beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. Section 2: 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 or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not effect 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: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance 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. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 24th day of April, 2000. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Rachel Richards, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 8t' day of May, 2000. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to form: John Worcestor, City Attorney Rachel Richards, Mayor 0 EXHIBIT A Rio GRANDE SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA REVIEW REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS 26.440.050. Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Staff Finding Staff is of the opinion that the proposed skateboard park is compatible with and enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. The proposed development would be located in the Rio Grande Park. The skateboard park would enhance the mix of recreation activities in and around the park, which include a large playing field, basketball court, bike/pedestrian paths, and fly fishing in the Roaring Fork River. A wide -range of land uses exist in the immediate vicinity, including civic, institutional, commercial, office, recreational, retail, and light industrial uses. This development would add to the eclectic mix of uses in and around the area. The proposal is to build depressed concrete structures. The height, bulk and architecture are compatible with the park and its surroundings. Landscaping will be provided to create a "canopy effect" around the depressed structures, and open space will be maintained to the greatest extent practicable. A half -pipe skateboard ramp is identified as one of the activities intended for this parcel in the Rio Grande Master Plan. Although the proposed skateboard consists of more structures than a half -pipe ramp, the structures are depressed. The proposed development is consistent with the Rio Grande Master Plan and conceptual review approval. This criterion is addressed. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Staff Finding Adequate roads exist to service the proposed skateboard park. Access to this park feature is provided by Rio Grande Place as well as the stairs connecting Rio Grande Place to Galena Street. RFTA and the Galena Street Shuttle service this area. Currently, seasonal san-o-lets are located in the park near the theater. This proposal includes the provision of two more san-o-let enclosures for all park users. In addition, public restrooms are located across Rio Grande Place in the parking garage and Youth Center. The Civic Center Master Plan will designate a location for permanent restroom facilities for the playing field, skateboard park, theater, and basketball court. The existing drinking fountain would be relocated to a new plaza serving as the park's entrance. An existing conduit, or electrical line, would be relocated as part of this development. Parking impacts are not expected to be significant since the nature of skateboarding is transportation and recreation; it is likely that skateboarders will arrive at the park on their skateboards, by bus, or on foot. This criterion is addressed. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff Finding Staff believes Site B is suitable for the development of a skateboard park. The Applicant has stated that the soils are stable and has provided a Geo-technical report documenting this finding. This site is not susceptible to mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers, or flood hazards. This criterion is met. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Staff Finding Staff believes the proposed development employs exceptional land planning techniques in this design. Depressing the concrete structures preserves all view planes, avoids adverse environmental impacts, and minimizes potential visual and noise impacts. The . design also preserves open space, trails, and all park amenities for users and the public at large. In addition, the basketball court would be relocated to maximize sun exposure, and new park amenities would be provided, including the skateboard park and more san-o- lets. And, the provision of a 35-foot buffer from the Rio Grande Trail exceeds the 20- foot recommendation in the Master Plan. Further, the proposal provides structures for skateboarders of all levels,. and separates the beginners from the experts for safety and enjoyment reasons. This criterion is met. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Although the AACP does not address expanding recreational opportunities in town, the location of the proposed skateboard park is consistent with many AACP goals. For example, the park is located in the center of town, making it accessible by alternative 2 modes of transportation such as by bus, bike, skateboard, or on foot. The plan also calls for creating mixed use developments, and this park will enhance the variety of land uses that already exist on Rio Grande Park and in the immediate vicinity. Staff believes this criterion is addressed. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Finding Staff does not believe the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. City Council has appropriated funds for all aspects of the project out of the Parks Department budget. This criterion is addressed. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040(B) (2). Staff Finding The slopes do not exceed 20%; this criterion is not applicable. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Staff Finding No GMQS allotments are required for this project; this criterion is not applicable. 3 • MEMORANDUM To: Nick Lelack, Planner From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: April 6, 2000 Re: Rio Grande Skateboard Park SPA Amendment The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Holy Cross Rezoning and PUD application at their March 29, 2000 meeting, and has compiled the following comments: General 1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." 2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights -of -way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. Site Review 1. Site Drainage — Requirement — A drainage report was not submitted with the application. The site development approvals must include the requirement meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.580.020.A.6.a and a requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan (24"06" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well below depth of frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be placed within public right of way or utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for building permit. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm. Information — The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented. This includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow and what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow. 2. Community Development — Information — The following request was provided by the Planning Department: a. Real bathrooms instead of san-o-lets would highly be desired. b. If no bathroom facilities are placed, then preparing for future bathrooms will be beneficial. c. Recreation classes for skateboard instruction would be beneficial. 3. Fire Protection District — Information — The following information has been provided by the Aspen Fire Protection District: a. Emergency vehicle access to the theatre needs to be maintained. b. Currently the fire extinguisher demo is performed on the present basketball courts. This needs to be taken in consideration while designing the surface for a new court. 4. Streets Department — Requirement - As of the request of the Streets Department revisions need to be made as follows: a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 5. Parks — Requirement — The following information has been provided by the Parks Department: a. A tree removal permit will be required. 6. Engineering — Information — The following requirements have been provided by the Engineering Department: a. There will be a lot of drainage that needs to be controlled. Therefore it would be beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. 7. Utilities: - Water: City Water Department - Information — The following information was given by the City of Aspen Water Department: a. Water facilities to the drinking fountain will have to be installed. 4 b. A water spigot for the cleanout of the area would be desirable and would need to have lines properly installed. It may be possible to use the irrigation lines if there is no change in the back flow. c. Lines should be placed for future plans of building bathrooms. Wastewater: Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Information — As a request of the Consolidated Waste District,. revisions need to be made as follows: a. A set of drainage plans needs to be provided to Peg at ACSD so that an estimate of fees can be processed. - Electric: City of Aspen Electric Department — Information — As a request of the Electric department, the following items should be noted: a. There is a conduit that would have to be moved before digging of the deeper bowl areas. b. Other conduit needs to be installed now for future expansion. Construction: Work in the Public Right of Way - Requirement — Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: Approvals 1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including grading, drainage, transportation/streets, landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way. 2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920- 5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance. 3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920- 5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways. 4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department. 91 DRC Attendees Staff. Mark O'Meara Applicant's Representative: Ed Van Walraven Ben Ludlow Nick Adeh John Krueger Joyce Ohlson Tom Bracewell Nick Lelack Scott Chism Julie Ann Woods Tom Bracewell Parks Dept. 4 • MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission THRU: Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Directofll 7 FROM: Nick Lelack, Planner 0 RE: Specially Planned Area Review to Build a Skateboard Park and to Relocate the Basketball Court on Rio Grande Park, Site B — Public Hearing DATE: April 18, 2000 APPLICANT: City Parks Department REPRESENTATIVE: Rebecca Shickling, City Parks Deputy Director Scott Chism, City Parks Planner REVIEW PROCEDURE: ZONING: Public, Specially Planned Area Overlay LOCATION: Rio Grande Park, Site B Final Specially Planned Area (SPA) Review: This two step process requires approval of a development plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council, with public hearings occurring at both. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall recommend approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval to the City Council. The Rio Grande master plan was developed as a conceptual SPA Plan. Following its adoption, new development or significant alterations must be consistent with this conceptual SPA plan and be reviewed pursuant. to the final SPA development review process. • STAFF COMMENTS: The City of Aspen Parks Deparment, ("Applicant"), represented by Scott Chism, Parks Planner, is requesting approval of a Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B. City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission endorsed the Rio Grande Master Plan in 1993. Rio Grande Park is divided into two (2) sites, Site A and Site B. Site A is located between the bike path and row of large Cottonwoods that edge the playing field, and the river. It also includes the snow melter and the drainage pond closest to Mill Street. Site B encompasses the recycle site, access road to Site A, the triangle of open space between the access road and bike/pedestrian path, and the playing field. It is bordered by Rio Grande Drive, Mill Street, and a row of Cottonwoods and the bike/pedestrian path to the north. The proposed skateboard park would be located on Site B in the open space triangle, which currently contains a basketball court and open space. The Master Plan outlines recommended land uses/activities for Site B. A half -pipe skateboard ramp is identified as one of the activities intended for this parcel (page 16). Although the proposed skateboard park is larger than a half -pipe ramp, the proposed skateboard park is consistent with the Master Plan and conceptual review. Site B is relatively flat, and contains stable soils and no utilities other than an existing electrical line. Site B is relatively small area that will be incorporated into the overall Civic Center Master Plan, scheduled to be completed by late autumn. The Civic Center Master Plan will designate a location for permanent restroom facilities for the playing field, skateboard park, theater, and basketball court. Currently, seasonal san-o-lets are located in the park near the theater. This proposal includes the provision of two more san-o-let enclosures for all park users. In addition, public restrooms are located across Rio Grande Place in the parking garage and Youth Center. Key skateboard park elements include the following elements: • The centerpiece of the proposal is a 17,000 square foot, "L-shape," in -ground, concrete skateboard park containing areas for all skill levels. Building concrete structures below the natural grade would minimize the noise and visual impacts of the skateboard park. • The basketball court would be relocated to the north with better sun exposure. • The existing drinking fountain would be relocated to the plaza space; the plaza space would serve as the park entry. • A 35-foot buffer zone south of the Rio Grande Trail would be created, exceeding the 20-foot buffer zone outlined in the master plan. • No new parking spaces would be created. • No new lights would be added to the park. The Commission should also be aware that any future rail or trolley facility would be located in the playing field area to the west as identified in the Master Plan. 2 e • Community Development Staff supports the proposed skateboard park development because it meets the review criteria, provides an important community recreation facility, and would be designed in a manner that minimizes its overall impact on the park and the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B, with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Emergency vehicle access to the theatre shall be maintained. 3. Currently, the fire extinguisher demonstration classes are performed on the present basketball courts. The Parks Department shall consider a court surface that will allow for the continuation of these demonstration classes. 4. The Applicant shall relocate the existing conduit to the satisfaction of the Electric Department. 5. The Applicant shall install water facilities to the relocated drinking fountain at the entrance to Rio Grande Park. 6. A water spigot for the cleanout of the area should be provided. It may be possible to use the irrigation lines if there is no change in the back flow. 7. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed on site during construction. 8. Prior to Construction: a. The Applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for the removal of trees on site. b. The Applicant shall submit and the City Engineer shall approve a drainage plan for the site. Drainage shall be controlled in a way that is beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B, with the conditions in the draft resolution." 3 s • ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Development Application Exhibit C -- Referral Agency Comments C:\home\nickl\Active Cases\Rio Grand SPA Skateboard Park Amendment\Rio Grande SPA Amendment.doc • 0 RESOLUTION NO.9/ (SERIES OF 2000) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA REVIEW TO BUILD A SKATEBOARD PARK AND RELOCATE THE EXISTING BASKETBALL COURT ON RIO GRANDE PARK, SITE B, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2737-073-06-851 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen Parks Department for a Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B; and, WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 42, Series of 1993 approved the Rio Grande Master Plan; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to the Rio Grande Master Plan and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, development review for site specific projects for the Rio Grande parcels shall be reviewed through the Specially Planned Area development review; and, WHEREAS, the Rio Grande Master Plan identifies a half -pipe skateboard ramp can be located on Rio Grande Park, Site B; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440 of the Land Use Code, City Council may approve a Specially Planned Area Review during a duly noticed public hearing after considering a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission made at a duly noticed public hearing, comments from the general public, a recommendation from the Community Development Director, and recommendations from relevant referral agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Fire Marshall, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the City Water Department, City Engineering, and the Community Development Department reviewed the Project and recommended approval with conditions; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on April 18, 2000, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended, by a _ to _ L-J vote, approval of a Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B, with conditions contained herein; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds all applicable development standards and that the approval of the development proposal, with conditions, 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: 0 Section 1 The Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the basketball court on Rio Grande Park, Site B, is approved with the following conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Emergency vehicle access to the theatre shall be maintained. 3. Currently, the fire extinguisher demonstration classes are performed on the present basketball courts. The Parks Department shall consider a court surface that will allow for the continuation of these demonstration classes. 4. The Applicant shall relocate the existing conduit to the satisfaction of the Electric Department. 5. The Applicant shall install water facilities to the relocated drinking fountain at the entrance to Rio Grande Park. 6. A water spigot for the cleanout of the area should be provided. It may be possible to use the irrigation lines if there is no change in the back flow. 7. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed on site during construction. 8. Prior to Construction: a. The Applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for the removal of trees on site. b. The Applicant shall submit and the City Engineer shall approve a drainage plan for the site. Drainage shall be controlled in a way that is beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. Section 2: 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 or City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not effect 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• If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance 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 the 181h day of April, 2000. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: City Attorney ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Robert Blaich, Chair • • REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS EXHIBIT A ERB 8040 GREENLINE REVIEW 26.440.050. Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Staff Finding Staff is of the opinion that the proposed skateboard park is compatible with and enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. The proposed development would be located in the Rio Grande Park. The skateboard park would enhance the mix of recreation activities in and around the park, which include a large playing field, basketball court, bike/pedestrian paths, and fly fishing in the Roaring Fork River. A wide -range of land uses exist in the immediate vicinity, including civic, institutional, commercial, office, recreational, retail, and light industrial uses. This development would add to the eclectic mix of uses in and around the area. The proposal is to build depressed concrete structures. The height, bulk and architecture are compatible with the park and its surroundings. Landscaping will be provided to create a "canopy effect" around the depressed structures, and open space will be maintained to the greatest extent practicable. A half -pipe skateboard ramp is identified as one of the activities intended for this parcel in the Rio Grande Master Plan. Although the proposed skateboard consists of more structures than a half -pipe ramp, the structures are depressed. The proposed development is consistent with the Rio Grande Master Plan and conceptual review approval. This criterion is addressed. 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development. Staff Finding Adequate roads exist to service the proposed skateboard park. Access to this park feature is provided by Rio Grande Place as well as the stairs connecting Rio Grande Place to Galena Street. RFTA and the Galena Street Shuttle service this area. 5 Currently, seasonal san-o-lets are located in the park near the theater. This proposal includes the provision of two more san-o-let enclosures for all park users. In addition, public restrooms are located across Rio Grande Place in the parking garage and Youth Center. The Civic Center Master Plan will designate a location for permanent restroom facilities for the playing field, skateboard park, theater, and basketball court. The existing drinking fountain would be relocated to a new plaza serving as the park's entrance. An existing conduit, or electrical line, would be relocated as part of this development. Parking impacts are not expected to be significant since the nature of skateboarding is transportation and recreation; it is likely that skateboarders will arrive at the park on their skateboards, by bus, or on foot. This criterion is addressed. 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rockfalls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. Staff Finding Staff believes Site B is suitable for the development of a skateboard park. The Applicant has stated that the soils are stable and has provided a Geo-technical report documenting this finding. This site is not susceptible to mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers, or flood hazards. This criterion is met. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. Staff Finding Staff believes the proposed development employs exceptional land planning techniques in this design. Depressing the concrete structures preserves all view planes, avoids adverse environmental impacts, and minimizes potential visual and noise impacts. The design also preserves open space, trails, and all park amenities for users and the public at large. In addition, the basketball court would be relocated to maximize sun exposure, and new park amenities would be provided, including the skateboard park and more san-o-lets. And, the provision of a 35-foot buffer from the Rio Grande Trail exceeds the 20-foot recommendation in the Master Plan. Further, the proposal provides structures for skateboarders of all levels, and separates the beginners from the experts for safety and enjoyment reasons. This criterion is met. S. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. Staff Finding Although the AACP does not address expanding recreational opportunities in town, the location of the proposed skateboard park is consistent with many AACP goals. For example, the park is located in the center of town, making it accessible by alternative modes of transportation such as by bus, bike, skateboard, or on foot. The plan also calls for creating R • mixed use developments, and this park will enhance the variety of land uses that already exist on Rio Grande Park and in the immediate vicinity. Staff believes this criterion is addressed. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Finding Staff does not believe the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. City Council has appropriated funds for all aspects of the project out of the Parks Department budget. This criterion is addressed. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent ineet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040(B)(2). Staff Finding The slopes do not exceed 20%; this criterion is not applicable. 8. Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. Staff Finding No GMQS allotments are required for this project; this criterion is not applicable. iA • • MEMORANDUM To: Nick Lelack, Planner From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: April 6, 2000 Re: Rio Grande Skateboard Park SPA Amendment The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Holy Cross Rezoning and PUD application at their March 29, 2000 meeting, and has compiled the following comments: General 1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." 2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights -of -way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. S ite Review 1. Site Drainage — Requirement — A drainage report was not submitted with the application. The site development approvals must include the requirement meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.580.020.A.6.a and a requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan (24"06" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well below depth of frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be placed within public right of way or utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for building permit. The drainage 7 may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm. Information — The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented. This includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow and what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow. 2. Community Development — Information — The following request was provided by the Planning Department: a. Real bathrooms instead of san-o-lets would highly be desired. b. If no bathroom facilities are placed, then preparing for future bathrooms will be beneficial. c. Recreation classes for skateboard instruction would be beneficial. 3. Fire Protection District — Information — The following information has been provided by the Aspen Fire Protection District: a. Emergency vehicle access to the theatre needs to be maintained. b. Currently the fire extinguisher demo is performed on the present basketball courts. This needs to be taken in consideration while designing the surface for a new court. 4. Streets Department — Requirement - As of the request of the Streets Department revisions need to be made as follows: a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 5. Parks — Requirement — The following information has been provided by the Parks Department: a. A tree removal permit will be required. 6. Engineering — Information — The following requirements have been provided by the Engineering Department: a. There will be a lot of drainage that needs to be controlled. Therefore it would be beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. 7. Utilities: - Water: E:3 City Water Department - Information — The following information was given by the City of Aspen Water Department: a. Water facilities to the drinking fountain will have to be installed. b. A water spigot for the cleanout of the area would be desirable and would need to have lines properly installed. It may be possible to use the irrigation lines if there is no change in the back flow. c. Lines should be placed for future plans of building bathrooms. - Wastewater: Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Information — As a request of the Consolidated Waste District, revisions need to be made as follows: a. A set of drainage plans needs to be provided to Peg at ACSD so that an estimate of fees can be processed. - Electric: City of Aspen Electric Department — Information — As a request of the Electric department, the following items should be noted: a. There is a conduit that would have to be moved before digging of the deeper bowl areas. b. Other conduit needs to be installed now for future expansion. Construction: Work in the Public Right of Way - Requirement — Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: Approvals 1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including grading, drainage, transportation/streets, landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way. 2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920- 5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance. 3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920- 5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways. 0 4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department. DRC Attendees Staff. Mark O'Meara Ed Van Walraven Ben Ludlow Nick Adeh John Krueger Joyce Ohlson Tom Bracewell Nick Lelack Scott Chism Julie Ann Woods Tom Bracewell Applicant's Representative: Parks Dept. } 10 Part 400 - Development Review Staiks and Procedures • Z6,49456.94A_ Section 26.440.44094.0 Chapter 26.440 SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA) Sections: 26.440.010 Purpose. 26.440.020 Applicability. 26.440.030 Designation of Specially Planned Area (SPA). 26.440.040 Procedures for review. 26.440.050 Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area. 26.440.060 Application. 26.440.070 SPA agreement and recordation. 26.440.080 Amendment to development order. 26.440.010 Purpose. The purpose of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) is to: A. Provide design flexibility for land which requires innovative consideration in those circumstances where traditional zoning techniques do not adequately address its historic significance, natural features, unique physical character, or location, and where potential exists for community benefit from comprehensive development. B. Allow the development of mixed land uses through the encouragement of innovative design practices which permit variations from standard zone district land uses and dimensional requirements. C. Establish a procedure by which land upon which multiple uses exist, or are considered appropriate, can be planned and redeveloped in a way that provides for the greatest public benefit. 26.440.020 Applicability. Before any development shall occur on land designated Specially Planned Area (SPA) on the official zone district map, or before development can occur as a Specially Planned Area (SPA), it shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter. 26.440.030 Designation of Specially Planned Area (SPA). A. Standards for designation. Any land in the City may be designated Specially Planned Area (SPA) by the City Council if, because of its unique historic, natural, physical, or locational characteristics, it would be of great public benefit to the City for that land to be allowed design flexibility and to be planned and developed comprehensively as a multiple use development. A parcel of land designated Specially Planned Area (SPA) shall also be designated on the City's official zone district map with the underlying zone district designation which is determined the most appropriate. The underlying zone district designation shall be used as a guide, but not an absolute limitation, to the uses and development which may be considered during the development review process. B. Procedure for designation, amendment, rescinding. Any parcel that meets the standards established in Section 26.440.030(A) may be designated Specially Planned Area (SPA) pursuant to review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by the City Council pursuant to the procedures established in this Chapter. The boundaries of a parcel previously designated Specially Planned Area (SPA) may be amended following the same procedures used in designating a parcel Specially Planned Area (SPA). The removal of a Specially Planned Area (SPA) designation from a parcel shall follow the same procedures used in designating the parcel Specially Planned Area (SPA), but shall require demonstration of why the land no longer meets the standards established in Section 26.440.030(A). Part 400 — Development Revieftdrds and Procedures 0 26AQ4564" 26.440.040 Procedures for Review. A. General. Any development within a Specially Planned Area (SPA) shall be reviewed pursuant to the procedures and standards in this Chapter and the Common Development Review Procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304. Unless the Community Development Director determines that the application should consolidate conceptual and final review in accordance with subsection B, below, the procedure requires review and approval of a conceptual development plan and final development plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. A development application for Specially Planned Area (SPA) designation shall be received and considered concurrently with a development application for a conceptual development plan. B. Consolidated review. 1. Conceptual and final development plan An applicant may request and the Community Development Director may determine that because of the limited extent of the issues involved in a proposed Specially Planned Area in relation to these review procedures and standards, or because of a significant community interest which the project would serve, it is appropriate to consolidate conceptual and final development plan review. The Community Development Director shall consider whether the full four step review would be redundant and serve no public purpose and inform the applicant during the pre -application stage whether consolidation will be permitted. An application which is determined to be eligible for consolidation shall be processed pursuant to the terms and procedures of final development plan review. The Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council may, during review, determine that the application should be subject to both conceptual and final plan review, in which case consolidated review shall not occur. 2. Other development review applications. An applicant may request and the Community Development Director may determine that an application for development within a Specially Planned Area (SPA) may be consolidated at the third step with a development application for conditional use, special review, ESA review, subdivision review, text amendment, rezoning, and/or for certain GMQS exemptions. However, if the applicant requests consideration of a code text amendment or rezoning, these applications may be considered at the conceptual steps, subject to final review at steps three and four. C. Steps Required. Unless consolidated in accordance with subsection B above, four steps are required for the review and approval of an application for development within a Specially Planned Area (SPA): 1. Step One - Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. a. Purpose: To determine if application meets standards for SPA. Notice requirements: None. C. Standards of review: Section 26.440.030(A) for SPA designation, Section 26.440.050 for review of development within SPA. d. P&Z action: Resolution approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving conceptual development plan for SPA. 2. Step Two - Public Hearing before City Council a. Purpose:To review recommendations of Planning and Zoning Commission and to determine if the application meets the standards for conceptual review of an SPA. Part 400 - Development ReyAndards and Procedures • 116.Q456.A39 b. Notice requirements: Requisite notice requirements for adoption of a resolution by City Council and publication, posting and mailing. (See 26.304.060(E)(3)(a),(b), and (0.) C. Standards of review: Section 26.440.030(A) for SPA designation, Section 26.440.050 for review of development within SPA. d. City Council action: Resolution approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving conceptual plan for SPA. 3. Step Three - Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. a. Purpose: To review application for final development plan to determine if it meets the standards for an SPA. b. Notice requirements: Publication, posting and mailing. (See 26.304.060(E)(3)(a),(b), and (c).) C. Standards of review: Section 26.440.030(A) for SPA designation, Section 26.440.050 for review of development within SPA. d. P&Z action: Resolution recommending to the City Council approval, approval with conditions, or disapproval of the SPA. 4. Step Four - Public Hearing before the City Council. a. Purpose: To review recommendations by Planning and Zoning Commission and to determine if application for final development plan meets the standards for an SPA. b. Notice requirements: Requisite notice requirements for adoption of an ordinance by City Council and publication, posting and mailing. (See 26.304.060(E)(3)(a),(b), and (0.) C. Standards of review: Section 26.440.030(A) for SPA designation, Section 26.440.050 for review of development within SPA. d. City Council: Ordinance approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving the SPA. D. Limitations. A development application for a final development plan shall be submitted within two (2) years of the date of approval of a conceptual development plan. Unless an extension is granted by the City Council prior to expiration, failure to file such an application within this time period shall render null and void the approval of a conceptual development plan. Approval of a conceptual development plan shall not constitute final approval for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA), or permission to proceed with development. Such approval shall only constitute authorization to proceed with a development application for a final development plan. 26.440.050. Review standards for development in a Specially Planned Area (SPA). A. General. In the review of a development application for a conceptual development plan and a final development plan, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council shall consider the following: 1. Whether the proposed development is compatible with or enhances the mix of development in the immediate vicinity of the parcel in terms of land use, density, height, bulk, architecture, landscaping and open space. Part 400 - Development Reviondards and Procedures 0 26AQ454,QW 2. Whether sufficient public facilities and roads exist to service the proposed development 3. Whether the parcel proposed for development is generally suitable for development, considering the slope, ground instability and the possibility of mud flow, rock falls, avalanche dangers and flood hazards. 4. Whether the proposed development creatively employs land planning techniques to preserve significant view planes, avoid adverse environmental impacts and provide open space, trails and similar amenities for the users of the project and the public at large. 5. Whether the proposed development is in compliance with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan. 6. Whether the proposed development will require the expenditure of excessive public funds to provide public facilities for the parcel, or the surrounding neighborhood. 7. Whether proposed development on slopes in excess of twenty (20) percent meet the slope reduction and density requirements of Section 26.445.040(B)(2). Whether there are sufficient GMQS allotments for the proposed development. The burden shall rest upon an applicant to demonstrate the general reasonableness and suitability of the proposed development, and its conformity to the standards and procedures of this Chapter and Section; provided, however, that in the review of the conceptual development plan, consideration will be given only to the general concept for the development, while during the review of the final development plan, detailed evaluation of the specific aspects of the development will be accomplished. B. Variations permitted. The final development plan shall comply with the requirements of the underlying zone district; provided, however, that variations from those requirements may be allowed based on the standards of this Section. Variations may be allowed for the following requirements: open space, minimum distance between buildings, maximum height, minimum front yard, minimum rear yard, minimum side yard, minimum lot width, minimum lot area, trash access area, internal floor area ratio, number of off-street parking spaces and uses, and design standards of Chapter 26.410 for streets and related improvements. Any variations allowed shall be specified in the SPA agreement and shown on the final development plan. 26.440.060 Application. A. Conceptual development plan. I . Contents of application. The contents of the development application for a conceptual development plan shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Common Development Review Procedures set forth at Chapter 26.304.030. b. A conceptual description of the proposed development. This shall include but not be limited to a statement of the intent of the proposed development and a conceptual description of proposed land uses, densities, design concepts, access ways, and a general time schedule for construction of the proposed development. C. A statement outlining in conceptual terms how the proposed development will be served with the appropriate public facilities and how assurances will be made that those public facilities are available to serve the proposed development. d. A conceptual site plan, illustrating: Part 400 - Development RevAndards and Procedures 0 26.404564W (1) Existing natural and manmade features. (2) General configuration of proposed land uses, access ways, and existing and proposed utilities. (3) Schematic drawings of proposed buildings, indicating general site design features and overall mass and height of proposed structures. B. Final development plan. 1. Contents of application. The contents of a development application for a final development plan shall include the following: a. The general application information required in Chapter 26.304. b. A precise plan of the proposed development including but not limited to proposed land uses, densities, landscaping, internal traffic circulation, and accessways. The precise plan shall be in sufficient detail to enable evaluation of the architectural, landscaping, and design features of the proposed development. It shall show the location and floor area of all existing and proposed buildings and other improvements including heights, dwelling unit types and nonresidential facilities. C. A statement specifying the underlying zone district on the parcel and, if variations are proposed, a statement of how the variations comply with the standards of Section 26.440.040(B). d. A statement outlining a development schedule specifying the date construction is proposed to be initiated and completed. e. A statement specifying the public facilities that will be needed to accommodate the proposed development, and what specific assurances will be made to ensure that public facilities will be available to accommodate the proposed development. f. A statement of the reasonable conformance of the final development plan with the approval granted to the conceptual development plan and with the original intent of the City Council in designating the parcel Specially Planned Area (SPA). g. A plat which depicts the applicable information required by Section 26.480.060(A)(3). h. A proposed SPA agreement which conforms to Section 26.440.070 below. 26.440.070 SPA agreement and Recordation. A. SPA Agreement. Upon approval of a final development plan, the applicant and the City Council shall enter into an agreement binding the real property to any conditions placed on the development order approving the final development plan, and providing landscape and public facilities guarantees as specified in Section 26.480.070. B. Recordation of final development plan. The final development plan, which shall consist, as applicable, of final drawings depicting the site plan, landscape plan, utility plan and building elevations, and specially planned area (SPA) agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and shall be binding upon the property owners subject to the development order, their successors and assigns, and shall constitute the development regulations for the property. Development of the property shall be limited to the uses, density, configuration, and all other elements and conditions set forth on the Part 400 - Development Revi-Ondards and Procedures 0 26AQ45G.9 final development plan and SPA agreement. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the final development plan and SPA agreement within a period of one hundred and eighty (180) days following its approval by City Council shall render the plan invalid and all associated vested rights shall expire. Reconsideration of the final development plan and SPA agreement by the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council may be required before its acceptance and recording. C. Recordation of designation. Upon the effective date of an act by the City Council designating a Specially Planned Area (SPA), the Community Development Director shall notify the City Clerk of the designation. The Clerk shall record among the real estate records of the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County, Colorado, a certified copy of the ordinance. The ordinance shall include a legal description of the property which is being designated Specially Planned Area (SPA). D. Placement on City's official zone district map. Upon the effective date of an act by the City Council designating a Specially Planned Area (SPA), the Community Development Director shall place the SPA designation and underlying zone district designation on the City's official zone district map. 26.440.090 Amendment to development order. A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final development plan may be authorized by the Community Development Director. The following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment: A change in the use or character of the development. 2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. 4. A reduction by greater than three (3) percent of the approved open space. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading space. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements. 7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. 8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development. 9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting of a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. B. All other modifications shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the final development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final plan . If the proposed change is not consistent with the approved final development plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and the final development review and approval. C. During the review of them proposed amendment, the planning and zoning Commission and City Council may require such conditions of approval as are necessary to insure that the development will be compatible with current community conditions. This shall include, but not be limited to, applying to the LI portions of the development which have not obtained building permits or are proposed to be amended to any new community policies or regulations which have been implemented since the original approval, or taking into consideration changing community circumstances as they affect the project's original representations and commitments. The applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at any time during the review process. Part 400 - Development Revilkndards and Procedures is 12G.494SG.9 H.euA� Xl eyed C�' �b �iq •fig Q'o �jr V"rtNe-- N J " v dK) C-� • MEMORANDUM To: Nick Lelack, Planner From: Ben Ludlow, Project Engineer Reference DRC Caseload Coordinator Date: April 6, 2000 Re: Rio Grande Skateboard Park SPA Amendment The Development Review Committee has reviewed the Holy Cross Rezoning and PUD application at their March 29, 2000 meeting, and has compiled the following comments: General 1. Sufficiency of Submittal: DRC comments are based on the fact that we believe that the submitted site plan is accurate, that it shows all site features, and that it is feasible. The wording must be carried forward exactly as written unless prior consent is received from the Engineering Department. This is to alleviate problems related to approvals tied to "issuance of building permit." 2. R.O.W. Impacts: If there are any encroachments into the public rights -of -way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements. Site Review 1. Site Drainage — Requirement — A drainage report was not submitted with the application. The site development approvals must include the requirement meeting runoff design standards of the Land Use Code at Sec. 26.580.020.A.6.a and a requirement that, prior to the building permit application, a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and containment plan for the construction phase. If drywells are an acceptable solution for site drainage, a soils report must be provided with a percolation test to verify the feasibility of this type of system. Drywells have depths well below depth of frost (10' minimum) to function in cold weather. The drainage plan must contain a statement specifying the routine maintenance required by property owner(s) to ensure continued and proper performance. Drywells may not be placed within public right of way or utility easements. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for building permit. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm. Page 2 of 4 • 04/07/00 Rio Grande Skateboard Park SPA Amendment Information — The City drainage criteria needs to be implemented. This includes but is not limited to erosion control, soil stabilization, and vegetation disturbance. Also, there needs to be an analysis of where the drainage will flow and what adverse affects may arise from potential mud and debris flow. 2. Community Development — Information — The following request was provided by the Planning Department: a. Real bathrooms instead of san-o-lets would highly be desired. b. If no bathroom facilities are placed, then preparing for future bathrooms will be beneficial. c. Recreation classes for skateboard instruction would be beneficial. 3. Fire Protection District — Information — The following information has been provided by the Aspen Fire Protection District: a. Emergency vehicle access to the theatre needs to be maintained. b. Currently the fire extinguisher demo is performed on the present basketball courts. This needs to be taken in consideration while designing the surface for a new court. 4. Streets Department — Requirement - As of the request of the Streets Department revisions need to be made as follows: a. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during construction. 5. Parks — Requirement — The following information has been provided by the Parks Department: a. A tree removal permit will be required. 6. Engineering — Information — The following requirements have been provided by the Engineering Department: a. There will be a lot of drainage that needs to be controlled. Therefore it would be beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. 7. Utilities: Water: City Water Department - Information — The following information was given by the City of Aspen Water Department: a. Water facilities to the drinking fountain will have to be installed. Page 3 of 4 • 04/07/00 Rio Grande Skateboard Park SPA Amendment b. A water spigot for the cleanout of the area would be desirable and would need to have lines properly installed. It may be possible to use the irrigation lines if there is no change in the back flow. c. Lines should be placed no for future plans of building bathrooms. - Wastewater. - Aspen Consolidated Waste District - Information — As a request of the Consolidated Waste District, revisions need to be made as follows: a. A set of drainage plans needs to be provided to Peg at ACSD so that an estimate of fees can be processed. Electric: City of Aspen Electric Department — Information — As a request of the Electric department, the following items should be noted: a. There is a conduit that would have to be moved before digging of the deeper bowl areas. b. Other conduit needs to be installed now for future expansion. - Construction: Work in the Public Right of Way - Requirement — Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows: Approvals 1. Engineering: The applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department (920-5080) for design of improvements, including grading, drainage, transportation/streets, landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way. 2. Parks: The applicant receives approval from the Parks Department (920- 5120) for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance. 3. Streets: The applicant receives approval from the Streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes, finished pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways. 4. Permits: Obtain R.O.W. permits for any work or development, involving street cuts and landscaping from the Engineering Department. Page 4 of 4 04/07/00 Rio Grande Skateboard Park SPA Amendment DRC Attendees Staff: Mark O'Meara Ed Van Walraven Ben Ludlow Nick Adeh John Krueger Joyce Ohlson Tom Bracewell Nick Lelack Scott Chism Julie Ann Woods Tom Bracewell Applicant's Representative: Parks Dept. L-Ij • Aspen Area Community Plan Action Plan Work Program Priorities 2000 to 2005 February 28, 2000 AACP Action Plan Items Work Program 1. Aspen Community Growth Boundary & Intergovernmental Agreement Develop an Aspen Community Growth Boundary and intergovernmental agreement between the City of Aspen and Pitkin County addressing a joint review process for the area within the Community Growth Boundary, but outside of the City Limits; annexation policies and policies regarding the development outside of the boundary. Complies with "Action Item #1 ", Growth Section Action Items #22-31, and Housing Item #7-17 Lead Department: Community Development Status: This is part of developing the Future Land Use Map and plan 2. Study needed modifications to Growth Management Quota System (GMQS): • Study amendments to the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) or develop a replacement system to allow more flexibility in meeting our affordable housing goals. (H5) • Identify the remaining development potential for free market residential, affordable housing, lodges, commercial space, etc. Consider modifying the GMQ system to have a separate allocation for affordable mitigation units versus unassociated affordable units. Update the maximum ceiling numbers in the Pitkin County Land Use Code (GMQS) annually. for each type of development. Identify the implications of exceeding these caps if we have a goal of limiting the population to 1998 levels. (G4) • Explore ways to address the need to capture what is currently explicitly exempted or missed from the Growth Management Quota System. Prior to making changes, evaluate the possible unintended consequences of changes to the GMQ system. (G16) • Consider revisions to the Growth Management Quota System: reduce or eliminate multi -year allotments, study the creation of a new system or method that paces development (building permit quota or lottery system), eliminate exemptions, etc. (G21, 22, H6) • Consider changes to land use codes that would encourage the development of upper floors in the downtown core to be developed for housing, including giving a higher priority to on -site housing in the commercial core in the GMQ system or its replacement. (G35) • Study the impacts of reducing or eliminating multi -year allocations in the GMQS. (G47) • Study methods and usefulness of discouraging "cash -in -lieu payments" as Affordable Housing mitigation for development. It is preferred that the developer build new units, ADU's or buy down existing units, and that they do so concurrently or prior to the construction of the new development. Whenever cash -in -lieu is approved as a method of mitigation, the payment should be commensurate with the cost to purchase land and build an actual dwelling unit or buy down an existing unit. • Conduct a study of the real costs of residential development to the community. Figures being generated should ultimately tie the actual employee generation to (a) the expense of construction by square footage, and/or (b) the size of the home. This study would include both free-market and affordable housing in the tabulations. Page I AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 • Study the impacts of revising the "change in use" provision of the City and County Codes. Consider requiring mitigation of any change in use that produces a net increase in impacts, and that the level of mitigation required be equal to 100% of the increase in impacts generated by the change in use. • Consider growth management polices that will encourage development as close to the town center as possible, or in identified Transit Oriented Development sites. Complies with Housing Section Action Item #5, 6, 7; Growth Items #4,14,16, 21, 22, 35, 40,47 Lead Department: Community Development Status: Remaining development potential based on existing GMQS has been identified. Several modifications are being considered to the GMQ system. Discussions are underway with a consultant to draft a white paper on the subject. The issue of real costs of residential development is addressed, to some extent, in a report by Gabe Preston, Pitkin County Planner. 3. FAR Study Explore a significant decrease in the FAR allowed both in the city and county. Study appropriateness of current FAR allowances and how FAR is measured, including a study of volume, for both affordable and free market developments. Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 17; Growth 19 Lead Department: Community Development Status: 4. Annexation Plan Update the Annexation Plan between Aspen and Pitkin County, taking into consideration the proposed Aspen Community Growth Boundary. Update annexation plans between Pitkin County and Snowmass Village, as well as other jurisdictions, to reflect our desire to guide new development near existing population centers and within three mile boundaries. Complies with Growth Section Action Items #50, 54, Lead Department: Community Development Status: Updating the Aspen/Pitkin Annexation Plan will be a follow-up activity to the Future Land Use Map and is in the work program for 2000 5. Infill and Redevelopment • Consider amendments to City development regulations to allow and encourage greater densities within the original Aspen town site. Allow easier subdivision of properties in the historic town site and allow for infill development, especially affordable housing. For example, infill development should be promoted above businesses in the downtown core. • Study what areas in downtown could have increased housing density in the form of mixed -use buildings. • Study the feasibility of creating minimum zoning density which promotes the goals of the AACP.. Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation 1, Housing # 10, 11, 12 Lead Department: Community Development & Housing Authority Status: Finished and ready for work session Page 2 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 6. Transferred Development Rights Study • Continue to work on moving Transferred Development Rights from the rural areas to the Metro area. Study the feasibility and impacts of Purchase of Development Rights. • Study the implications of naming the Commercial Core as a Transfer Development Right (TDR) receiving site. • Study implementation Purchase Development Rights programs • Study the feasibility of using TDR's to sterilize development on lands identified as "private lands with conservation value" on the Open Space map. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #51, Economic Sustainability # 13, Housing Section # 14 Lead Department: Community Development Status: Staff work has been initiated to identify issues related to a City of Aspen TDR program. The County has begun a study of PDR's. 7. Encouraging Affordable Housing Provision/Development Study criteria for upzoning for higher density affordable housing. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #37 Lead Department: Community Development Status: To some extent this is being addressed through the Infill Housing study that is going on, but that work could be expanded to address broader Metro Area opportunities. 8. Encouraging Affordable Housing Provision/Development • Develop a simplified set of Housing Development Guidelines. A straightforward set of requirements adopted (not more often than once a year) that would delineate the acceptable places, density, types of units, price restrictions, etc. The document could explain the purpose of the housing program and even encourage specific types of development desired by the community and any public monies available in partnerships. This would not supersede the requirements for subdivision, PUD, etc., but would give some indication as to the category mix, types of units, etc., that are acceptable to elected officials. Developers complying with the guide may be able to proceed through the approval process more simply. The intent would be to focus the philosophical debate of what is acceptable to one time per year and not in response to each development application. (G 45) • Maintain a clear set of affordable housing development guidelines that delineate the specific objectives of our housing policy. These guidelines should not be re-evaluated with each individual development proposal, but should be amended on a regular basis as our housing circumstances and needs change. Because people may rely on these guidelines in purchasing land, these guidelines should not change so often as to cause significant uncertainties. (H 27) • Investigate incentives for and consider adding to the existing criteria for lot splits the ability to subdivide for Affordable Housing. • Study opportunities to provide incentives in our development regulations and housing policies in order to encourage the development of affordable housing by community groups such as citizens, businesses, and non -profits. • Study opportunities to amend development regulations to facilitate the development of affordable housing units. • Consider modifications to development review procedures to give priority to projects that promote a "mix" of housing types to serve people of different needs and income levels, and encourage a healthy social balance. • Simplify and shorten review procedures for projects clearly meeting the objectives of our housing policy and the overall community goals. These guidelines should not be reevaluated on a per project basis, but should rather be amended on a regular basis as our housing circumstances change. Page 3 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 • Evaluate parking standards for affordable housing and infill development that can be tied into design and management alternatives. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #38, 45, Housing Section Action Items # 3, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28 Lead Department: Community Development and Housing Authority Status: The role of the Interim Citizens Housing Plan and Guidelines should be made more clear. This is supportive of the Housing Master Plan effort. 9. Infill and Redevelopment: Site Specific Study Evaluate opportunities for publicly held properties to be developed or redeveloped to include or be replaced by affordable housing. Explore moving the Aspen Fire Station to Main Street and developing neighborhood commercial shops with affordable housing above. Utilize the current site to develop a model of mixed -use neighborhood commercial, offices and housing. Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 9 & 15 Lead Department: Community Development & Housing Authority Status: 10. Better Data Collection: Evaluate existing conditions and determine actual population levels today for the Aspen metro area based on updated lodge room and household numbers. Every five years conduct an updated current population analysis, both of permanent residents and part-time residents and visitors. Bring the 1993 AACP Existing Conditions report up to date. (G1, 39, 46, H2) Create a tracking system that would allow the Community Development Department to more easily report all approved development that is not yet built. (G41) Submit a report to City Council at the end of each year. The Construction Report may work for this purpose. This report shows all of the year's building permits based on type and valuation. (G42) Develop a procedure for analyzing build out potential annually. The Construction Report may serve as a base. (G43) Complies with Growth Section Action Item #1, 39, 41, 42, 43, 46, Housing Item #2, Lead Department: Community Development Status: The AACP Existing Conditions Report fulfills this obligation. Annual maintenance of this report is now part of the long range planner duties. This is consistent with the planned maintenance of the Existing Conditions Report 11. Downtown Enhanced Pedestrian Plan (DEPP) Following the completion of the Downtown Enhanced Pedestrian Plan (DEPP) Pilot Project, work with area business owners to complete the full implementation of the project. Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 12 Lead Department: Community Development Status: 12. Rural Transportation Authority Support the Rural Transportation Authority (RTA) Action Plan by helping to bring the RTA concept to voters in the Roaring Fork Valley by May 2000, with a funding vote in November 2000. Complies with T17 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Underway 13. Entrance to Aspen Obtain funding for and implement the Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision. Complies with T2 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Underway Page 4 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 14. Sustainable Economic Development Task Force Establish a sustainable economic development task force to identify effective ways to increase wealth generation within the existing economic structure. Its membership should include the entire valley. Complies with Economic Sustainability # 6 Lead Department: Status: 15. Work to Preserve Open Space Study opportunities to preserve parcels or portions of parcels identified in the "Greenfrastructure Plan" to be undertaken by the Parks Department for future parks and open space. Acquire properties along river corridors, including the Roaring Fork River, and Maroon and Castle Creeks. Where needed, acquire properties to establish and enhance "greenfrastructure" and pedestrian access, including acquiring easements along river corridors. Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #8 & 14 Lead Department: Parks Department Status: 16. Ecological Bill of Rights Revisit the Ecological Bill of Rights. Develop a specific action plan for each "Right" to reflect the Bill of Rights. Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #19 Lead Department: Environmental Health Status: Planned for 2001 17. Housing Master Plan • A Housing Master Plan which pulls together all of the relevant documents related to Affordable Housing should be compiled. It should highlight and be consistent with the criteria outlined in the Interim Citizen Housing Plan and the goals and policies of the Housing element of the AACP. (G 5) • The City and County should utilize the Interim Strategic Housing Guidelines for determining appropriate affordable housing sites. The criteria should represent both the physical characteristics of the land and its ability to contribute to the social fabric of town. A map should be developed showing areas that might meet those criteria. (H 7, 18) • Modify development regulations to support the Interim Strategic Housing Guidelines and encourage development of affordable housing where many of the "good housing site criteria" are represented. (H8) Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 7, 8, 18, Growth #5 Lead Department: Community Development and Housing Authority Status: Related to Future Land Use Map. Also falls into the work program development of the Housing Authority. Criteria already exist in the form of the "Interim Strategic Housing Guidelines." 18. Community Sustainability Indicators Develop indicators of community sustainability in order to measure important areas in which the valley community may be progressing or declining over time. They should include indicators of community, environmental and economic well-being. Track business ownership to determine extent of local ownership. Track the number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees in each business, and any other indicators deemed useful in determining community economic health. Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 1, 2, 3 Lead Department: Community Development and Finance Department Status: Page 5 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 19. Neighborhood Commercial and Service/ Commercial/ Industrial Zone Districts Revise the Neighborhood Commercial and Service/ Commercial/ Industrial zone district permitted and conditional uses lists to ensure only locally serving uses are permitted within those zone districts. Eliminate the option for single family housing in those zone districts. Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 8 Lead Department: Community Development Status: 20. Stem the Loss of Commercial and Office Space Review city and county codes to identify and resolve problems regarding the loss of commercial and office space to other uses. To simplify the code, reduce the overall number of zone districts and eliminate redundancies. Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 17 Lead Department: Community Development Status: 21. Add Neighborhood Commercial and Service/ Commercial/ Industrial Zoned Areas Zone additional areas for Neighborhood Commercial and Service/ Commercial/ Industrial development within the city. Study the impacts of rezoning undeveloped commercially zoned land to neighborhood commercial or SCI zoning with an affordable housing overlay requiring affordable housing be built on site. Promote mixed -use development, especially in the Commercial Core. Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 9, 10 Lead Department: Community Development Status: 22. Historic Preservation Land Use Code Amendments Review and amend the land use code to address the following issues related to Historic Preservation: • Study and amend land use/zoning regulations so that hindrances to creating traditional building forms and context are removed (for example 25% open space req.). (HP 2) • Re-examine the land use code so that Main Street and the downtown core can be redeveloped to provide possible locations for, and encourage the creation of, small businesses and mixed uses. (HP 3) Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation #2 & 3 Lead Department: Community Development; Historic Preservation Status: 23. Study Tiered Development Approval Study the feasibility and usefulness of developing a tiered development approval process that correlates the number of steps to the number of units requested (a greater number of steps for larger projects). Develop a separate process for conversion to Affordable Housing from free-market residential or lodge units as well as for upgrades of existing Affordable Housing units. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #6 Lead Departments: Community Development and Housing Authority Status: 24. Re -Development Mitigation Explore having larger redevelopment projects pay for either on -site, deed -restricted Accessory Units or a buy -down elsewhere within the Aspen Community Growth Boundary. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #18 Lead Department: Community Development Status: Page 6 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 25. Improve and Broaden Residential Design Standards Improve and strengthen residential design standards, including adding landscape review and studying design standards for properties adjacent to historic properties. Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation # 11-15 Lead Department: Community Development; Historic Preservation Status: New design standards have been adopted. Landscape review is being discussed. 26. Improve Enforcement of HPC Decisions Develop stronger methods of enforcement with HPC direction such as larger fines, withholding Certificates of Occupancy (CO's), licensing contractors for historic work, etc. Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation #16-19 Lead Department: Community Development & Attorney's Office Status: 27. Protect Historic Sites Protect historic sites, update the inventory, create a preservation watch list to monitor demolitions of non - inventoried properties, etc. Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation #20-22 Lead Department: Community Development; Historic Preserva. on Status: 28. Improve Historic Preservation Communication and Education Improve communication, education, and advocacy for historic preservation and create better tools to accomplish this goal such as brochures. speakers bureau for local groups, historic marker program, history of local historic preservation efforts, etc. Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation #23-28 Lead Department: Community Development; Historic Preservation Status: 29. Improve Historic Preservation Commission Review Process Work to improve the Historic Preservation Commission review process. Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation # 6-10 Lead Department: Community Development; Historic Preservation Status: 30. Improve Design Quality Communication and Education Improve communication, education, and advocacy for quality design through public education and outreach program building, upon the recommendations in the AACP 1998 Update. Complies with Action Items: Design Quality # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, & 17 Lead Department: Community Development: Historic Preservation Status: 31. Support Restoration of Existing Buildings Investigate ways to encourage the restoration or improvement of existing buildings. Special attention should be given to buildings with multiple ownership (condo's). Complies with Action Items: Design Quality # 15 Lead Department: Community Development Status: Page 7 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 32. Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle Promote the concept of "Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle" as a way to protect our environment and extend the life of the Pitkin County Landfill. Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #21 Lead Department: Environmental Health Status: Step 1 of Reduce Reuse Recycle will be taken this year with test compactor/recycling stations in Red Onion alley and City Hall. In 2000, the Environmental Health Department will try to increase City Hall recycling, expand to other city buildings, and study ways to increase recycling in the core. We will investigate better recycling in city parks and backyard composting program. 33. De -Icing Alternatives Study the impact of the use of de-icing applications on vegetation and water quality. Explore alternatives to using chemicals or establish a policy of a dilution ratio to minimize the impacts of de-icing and dust abatement agents such as Magnesium Chloride or other chemicals. Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #18 Lead Department: Environmental Health Status: A study of imp2 :t of deicers was completed in 1999 and reported to council. An alternative to Magnesium Chloride is now in use as a deicer. In 2000 the Environmental Health Department will continue in -stream monitoring to see what the levels of chemicals are and will evaluate the results of analyses of concentrations of heavy metals in air and report that to council. Council has not wanted to use alternatives to deicers. The Streets Department is minimizing use of deicers to get as much dilution as possible. 34. Better Data Collection: The Housing Authority should regularly tabulate and publish a list of public sector affordable housing projects in the planning stages. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #44, Goal F Lead Department: Housing Authority Status: 35. Aspen in -town transit service Develop and implement a plan for improving in -town transit service and reversing recent declines in in - town ridership. The plan should consider a variety of service improvements and take into account traveler demand and net public cost per rider. Among the service improvements that might be considered include: • Relocating or adding bus stops where necessary. • Providing bus stop shelters and other amenities. • Procuring new and better vehicles. • Running the Hunter Creek bus service in both directions. • Establishing an East End fixed -route service. • Extending the operating hours of the Galena Street Shuttle to serve evening and nighttime travel destinations more effectively. • Increasing the frequency and reliability of bus service to the Music Tent. • Providing bus service to the Red Brick Arts Center and other places in the West End. • Providing increased transit service to sporting, cultural and other special events. • Provi :ing or encouraging the private sector to provide vanpool, dial -a -ride, or other forms of transit service to upper Red Mountain neighborhoods. Complies with T5 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Underway Page 8 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 • • 36. Transportation Management Provide a wide range of flexible transportation management tools and techniques to reduce single - occupant automobile use. Increase participation in the Transportation Options Program. Complies with T42, T43, T44, T45, T46 Lead Department: Transportation Status: 37. Parking Regulations Study the benefits and costs of amending the city and county development regulations to require new developments to limit parking provided on -site to levels substantially below current requirements. Study the benefits and costs of requiring new parking areas to be designed for later conversion to other uses such as affordable housing or park space. Study locations, benefits and costs for remote parking as a substitute for on -site parking. Develop standards for providing bicycle parking. Bring proposals to Council for approval as appropriate. Complies with T55, T57, T56 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Not yet underway. 38. Transit -Oriented Design and Development Develop guidelines, review criteria and development regulations to ensure that new developments in the Roaring Fork Valley are designed for easy and cost-effective transit, pedestrian and bicycle access and circulation. Identify appropriate locations for transit -oriented development. Complies with T60 and T61 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Partially underway through RFTA master plan development process and Corridor Investment Study. 39. Transportation Data Improve the ability of elected officials, staff and citizens to understand transportation problems and the effectiveness of solutions by collecting better data on local travel patterns. For example, establish new and permanent traffic count locations and conduct periodic scientific surveys of travel patterns. Complies with T62, T63 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Development of a data collection "framework" is underway. 40. GIS Inventory of Sidewalks, Trails and Bike Routes Create a GIS-based inventory of existing and proposed bikeways, bike storage facilities, existing and proposed sidewalks, and other walkways and trails in the Aspen metro area. The inventory can be used to develop a brochure/ bicycle map of the Aspen area that includes information on the location of bicycle/ transit interface points, bike shops, bicycle parking, pavement types, etc. Complies with T19 Lead Department: Transportation and GIS Status: Partially completed. 41. Improve Highway Safety Work with CDOT to improve highway safety in the Roaring Fork Valley. Complies with T41 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Ongoing Page 9 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 • • 42. Preserve the Rio Grande Right of Way Preserve the Rio Grande Railroad right-of-way as a transit and a pedestrian corridor within the City of Aspen. Complies with T16 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Ongoing 43. Consider Other Innovative Transportation Modes Continue to study the idea of connecting skier facilities, residential areas, etc. via gondolas, funiculars, aerial tramways and other non -automobile means. Complies with T64 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Ongoing 44. Monitor Highway Construction Impacts on Vehicle Use Monitor and study the impact of the Basalt -to -Buttermilk highway reconstruction on travel behavior, including rates of single -occupant vehicle use and accidents. Complies with T30 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Ongoing 45. Enforce HOV lanes Work with law enforcement to ensure proper use of HOV lanes on Highway 82. Complies with T31 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Ongoing 46. Greenfrastructure Plan Develop a Comprehensive Map and Inventory of all existing public property, trail easements, and fishing easements including land trust properties and conservation easement holdings. If possible, the map or maps should include areas of Aspen, Pitkin County, Snowmass Village and (to extent possible) down valley areas. The map. preferably done on a GIS system, should be updated every 2-3 years. A comprehensive database should be developed, keeping track of all conservation easements and open space parcels, the beneficiaries of these, the date of purchase and intent of the acquisition, any development stipulations, etc. These should be linked to the GIS map. Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment # 3 & 14 Lead Department: Parks Department & Community Development Status: Part of Future Land Use Map 47. Sixth Penny Ordinance Study the impacts of revising the Sixth Penny Ordinance that provides funding for City Parks, Trails and Open Space, to make it consistent with Pitkin County Open Space language. That language requires replacement of any converted park, open space or trail interest with a comparable parcel of land. Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment # 16 Lead Department: Parks Department & Attorneys Office Status: Page 10 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 48. Wagner and Iselin Parks Master Plans Complete the Master Plans for Wagner Park and Iselin Park. Look at ways to continue active use of the parks in development of the plan. Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #7 Lead Department: Parks Department Status: Iselin Master Plan completed. Wagner Park Master Plan to be completed by summer 2000. 49. Increase Revenues to Support Recreational Operations Study opportunities to increase revenues to support recreational operations including increased user fees and other sources. Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #12 Lead Department: Parks Department Status: Underway. Parks Department is recommending new user fees that will be reviewed annually as part of the budget process. 50. Promote Volunteer Involvement in Parks Maintenance Organize "Volunteer Days" for parks and open space preservation and maintenance projects. Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #5 Lead Department: Parks Department Status: Underway. Volunteer projects completed include Marolt Wetlands, John Denver Sanctuary and Snyder Park. Future projects include Maroon Creek Wetlands, and Community Campus. 51. Re -Development or Reconstruction Mitigation Explore developing a sliding scale to apply to all substantial re -development or reconstruction (where all, or virtually all of a commercial or residential building is torn down and rebuilt) for mitigation of affordable housing. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #17 Lead Department: Community Development Status: 52. Review Historic Preservation Program Review existing Historic Preservation program to see how well it is working. Maintain and add innovative ways to make preservation work in Aspen, such as the historic landmark lot split, property tax relief, study impacts of FAR bonus Complies with Action Items: Historic Preservation #29-40 Lead Department: Community Development; Historic Preservation Status: 53. Essential Community Facility and Affordable Housing In planning for any "Essential Community Facility," it should be determined if there is sufficient affordable housing associated with the project to ensure the facility is viable over the long run. Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 16 Lead Department: Status: 54. Encourage Public/Private Partnerships to Provide Affordable Housing The Housing Authority should pursue public/private partnerships with private sector developers, businesses, and non -profits to aid in the development of affordable housing which can address the specific party and the overall community. New partnership ideas as well as "tried and true" concepts that have benefited the program in a positive way should guide future decisions. Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 22 Lead Department: Housing Authority Status: Page 1 1 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 55. Study Free -Market Incentive To Build Affordable Housing. Study the use of the free-market incentive to build Affordable Housing. Determine if the 70/30 and 60/40 components to Planned Unit Developments are adding more free-market job generation than they make up for in affordable housing provision. Research other incentives to encourage the development of Affordable Housing. Consider transferring some of the Affordable Housing subsidy monies to the private sector developers. Private developers should be able to access some amount. subsidy per employee housed provided to the Housing Authority for 100% affordable projects. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #8, 35 Lead Departments: Community Development; Team Department: Housing Authority Status: 56. Affordable Housing and Parks Partnerships • Ensure that parks and open space are available or are provided near development of affordable housing, especially in areas of increased densities. (G33) • When upzoning for Affordable Housing, consider the pros and cons of deed restricting those portions of the property that are to be preserved as open space. (G36) • Upon completion of a Master Plan for these individual sites which will identify where open space should be preserved, deed restrictions should be placed on the property to ensure these open spaces will be sterilized from future development, including sterilization from additional affordable (rousing. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #33, 36 Lead Department: Community Development, Parks Department, and Housing Authority Status: 57. Affordable Housing Residents Survey Conduct a post -occupancy review of public affordable housing. This process could seek the opinions of the community in general including those of the new homeowners and their neighbors. Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 25 Lead Department: Housing Authority Status: Housing Authority is currently engaged in a survey of residents, but in addition this action item calls for review of new projects within a year of completion 58. Study Workforce Management Study ways to manage the size and composition of the workforce and the impacts of doing so. Utilize and build upon the work initiated by the Aspen Institute group on affordable housing and job growth. Study ways to better capture the effects of employee generation through employee mitigation. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #13, #15, Housing Item #1 Lead Department: Community Development Status: 59. Historic Preservation Master Plans Create Master Plans for key historic properties. Complies with Action Item: Historic Preservation #4 Lead Department: Community Development & Housing Authority Status: Civic Center Master Plan under discussion 60. Design Competitions Study the pros and cons of awarding public projects through design competitions to promote a higher standard of design and creativity. When possible, sponsor design competitions or other creative methods for getting the best affordable housing product possible. Complies with Action Items: Design Quality # 9, Housing Section # 26 Lead Department: Community Development and/or the Housing Authority Status: Page 12 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 61. Develop A "Peak Capacity Standard" Study the development of a "peak capacity standard" which takes into consideration a peak physical and social infrastructure capacity. Identify the remaining capacity of the existing infrastructure (schools, fire department, police, utilities, roads, etc) and relate these numbers to the ultimate available build out and population potential. Complies with Growth Section Action Items #2 & 3 Lead Department: Community Development Status: 62. Quality of Transit Service in the Region Improve transit service in the Roaring Fork Valley by increasing the speed, frequency, reliability and attractiveness of transit service between and within valley communities. Complies with T3 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Implementation depends on passage of the RTA and on the outcome of the Corridor Investment Study. 63. Visitor Use of Transit Work with RFTA to increase visitor use of transit service, including service to and from Glenwood Springs and other communities in the valley. Complies with T51, 53, 54 Lead Department: Transportation Status: In the City of Aspen, increases in visitor use will largely be the result of better marketing and some service improvements not yet designed or implemented. Methods to increase visitor use valley -wide will depend largely on the transit mode ultimately chosen for the valley transit system (i.e., bus or rail). 64. Transit Passenger Safety and Experience Work with RFTA to improve passenger safety and experience through the following kinds of efforts: ♦ Procure transit vehicles that maximize the comfort of riders in order to encourage high rates of use. For example, transit vehicles should have ample leg and shoulder room and adequate reading lights. Also, use of quieter and alternative -propulsion vehicles should become standard. • Develop guidelines for providing shelters, lighting and bicycle parking at transit stops. • Improve carriage of bicycles on board transit vehicles and storage of bicycles at transit stops. • Improve storage of traveler items on transit vehicles and at transit stops. • Consider dedicating a portion of paid parking revenue to improve transit stop conditions. Complies with T8, 10-13 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Not yet underway. Depends heavily on the transit mode selected for the trunk system (i.e., bus or rail). 65. Traveler Information Improve traveler's experience by providing local travel information at bus stops, on the Internet, through brochures, etc. Reduce travel by visitors in automobiles through support of innovative traveler services. Develop means to provide real-time information on transit service and road conditions to travelers in the Roaring Fork Valley. Conduct a study of methods to transferring and checking luggage through from the airport to hotels. Improve the quality and availability of information on travel options (i.e., transit, lodge shuttles, walking, bicycling, etc.) provided to visitors both before and after arrival in Aspen. Provide information to visitors in multiple languages and using international symbols. Complies with T50, T51, T52, T53, T54 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Page 13 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 66. Area -Wide Parking Management Manage the supply of parking in the Aspen area. Develop remote long-term parking storage facilities as an alternative to parking at new or redeveloped housing sites. Consider extending paid parking to any location in the community where a parking -based travel management program makes sense. Study the impacts of encouraging or requiring landlords and hotel managers to assess parking fees separately from housing and commercial rents or room rates. Encourage employers to "cash out" employee parking. Consider extending the hours of parking enforcement into the evening (particularly during the peak seasons). Complies with T35, T36, T37, T38 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Not yet underway. 67. Parks Advisory Board Explore the creation of a City of Aspen Parks, Open Space, Trails & Natural Resources Advisory Board. Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #13 Lead Department: Parks Department Status: 68. Reconvene the Public Projects Review Group Reconvene the Public Projects Review Group. Complies with Action Items: Design Quality # 7 & 14 Lead Department: Community Development: Historic Preservation Status: 69. Develop Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA's): • Work on developing IGA's between the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, the Town of Snowmass Village and the Town of Basalt regarding containment of development within Community Growth Boundary's, annexations agreements, or by some other mechanism. (48) • Consider the impacts of development proposals regionally. Utilize intergovernmental agreements regarding location of development on a regional basis. Consider including Snowmass Village in our population figures and as part of our affordable housing solution. Snowmass Village utilizes much of the same basic infrastructure such as roads, schools, sheriff, landfill, etc. (49) • Valley -wide coordination of comprehensive plans is encouraged. Create an intergovernmental agreement regarding a process for dispute resolution. Encourage the development of separate growth boundaries for each valley community to protect the natural beauty of the valley we share, and to encourage development to occur in a more economically efficient manner. (52) Complies with Growth Section Action Items #48, 49, 52, Goal G Lead Department: Community Development Status: This will be a follow-up activity to the Future Land Use Map and The Aspen/Pitkin Annexation Plan Update. 70. Encouraging Buy -Downs Study ways to provide Affordable Housing without new construction such as grants and other assistance programs for buy -downs and deed restrictions of existing units. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #9 Lead Departments: Community Development & Housing Authority Status: 71. Engage Part -Time Residents in Community Affairs Explore ways to get part-time residents more engaged in the community. Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 5 Lead Department: Status: Page 14 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 72. Improve Commercial Air Service to Aspen and Pitkin County Study opportunities to improve customer service and the quality of air service consistent with the Airport Plan recently adopted by Pitkin County. Work with the airport management staff to determine problems and opportunities for solutions. Quality air service is critical to our economy. Complies with T1 Lead Department: Transportation Status: 73. Establish a Greater Presence of the Arts in Transportation Work with RFTA to establish a greater presence for the arts in transportation. For example: • Consider allowing riders and others to submit artwork for display on or in vehicles, at stops, on bus passes, etc. • Consider encouraging and promoting discussion groups for poetry, short stories, film, etc. on transit vehicles. • Consider partnering with the Commercial Core Lodging Commission (CCLC) to provide sculpture and other artwork at transit stops. • Consider establishing bilingual (i.e.. Spanish and English) arts programs for transit. • Consider sponsoring photograph competitions or exhibitions illustrating the benefits of mass transit. • Consider encouraging and promoting tutoring of students on transit. • Consider distributing arts calendars through transit vehicles and stops. Complies with T15 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Not yet underway. 74. Update Aspen Walkway and Bikewav System Plan Update and revise the Aspen Walkway and Bikeway System Plan to include the following: • Completed or proposed changes to the bikeway and walkway network since 1990. • Policies and an action plan for improving bicycle storage at or near employment and other activity sites throughout the Aspen metro area. • Better integration of bicycles and transit. • Bicvcle and Pedestrian Level -of -Service (LOS) standards. • More in-depth consideration of pedestrian access to transit. • Traffic calming recommendations. • Establishment of a more -definite timetable for completion of projects. • Identification of more -specific project funding sources. Complies with T18 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Not yet underway. 75. Improve the Bikeway System Improve bicycle path directness, interconnectivity, and safety through the following: • Conduct an inventory of locations where bikeways are discontinuous, indirect or poorly maintained. • Develop an action plan to remedy bikeway deficiencies. • Implement the trail improvements outlined in the Trail System Refinement Report for the Entrance to Aspen. • Implement the trail components of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan (i.e., specifically between Heron Park and the area around the Ute Children's Park). Complies with T20 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Partially underway. Page 15 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 76. Study a "Free Bike" Program Study the development of a program to provide a fleet of "free -use" bikes in Aspen. Complies with T22 Lead Department: Transportation Status: 77. Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety and Security Where needed, improve bicycle safety through improved signage, striping, shrub maintenance, and education. Evaluate Aspen street corners to determine if parked cars, shrubs or other objects hinder the ability of motorists to see pedestrians and vice versa. Study the feasibility and need to increase the availability of secure bicycle parking (racks and lockers). Study the feasibility of establishing a dedicated funding source (i.e., budget line item) for bicycle facility maintenance and improvements. Complies with T21, T26, T23, T24 Lead Department: Transportation Status: 78. Improve Pedestrian Infrastructure Look for opportunities to improve the pedestrian infrastructure to encourage walking. For example: • Develop an action plan for sidewalk additions and improvements. • Improve crosswalk conditions at the intersection of Main and Mill Streets (including reestablishing the four -second "head start" for pedestrians). • Improve crossing conditions at appropriate locations along Main Street to enable safer and more convenient travel by foot through town. • Improve pedestrian crossing conditions on Highway 82 at Truscott/Golf Course. • Improve pedestrian crossing conditions on Highway 82 at Buttermilk. • Improve pedestrian crossing conditions on Highway 82 at 8th Street. • Improve east -west pedestrian travel conditions in the West End through addition of a walkway that is detached from the street or that provides some separation between people and moving traffic. • Install a sidewalk on the south side of Puppy Smith Street. • Install a sidewalk on Red Mountain Road, if feasible. • Clean up the Aspen alleys for easier and more pleasant use by pedestrians. • Install a truck alley/pedestrian way on the north side of Wagner Park (to be consistent with the proposed master plan for Wagner Park). Complies with T25 Lead Department: Transportation Status: 79. Sidewalk Ordinance Where possible, extend the coverage of the sidewalk ordinance of the Aspen Municipal Code to include all areas within the Aspen City Limits. Complies with T58 Lead Department: Transportation Status: 80. Complete Community Trail System Complete community trail systems such as: the Benedict/Roaring Fork River Trail from Herron Park to the Aspen Club, and the Shadow Mountain Trail. Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #9 & 10 Lead Department: Parks Department Status: Page 16 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 81. Improve Public Access to Parks and Recreation Improve public access to and information about parks and recreation facilities through brochures and signage programs. Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #1, 2, 4 Lead Department: Parks Department Status: 82. Financial Assistance to Encourage Private Affordable Housing Study options for encouraging the development of affordable housing through financial assistance programs. Public funds should be made available to groups who propose affordable housing projects meeting the guidelines and who demonstrate the need for financial assistance. Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 23 Lead Department: Housing Authority Status: 83. Increase Rates of Carpool and Vanpool Use Maintain and improve the appeal of carpools and vanpools for a wide variety of trip types through expanded ride matching, outreach and education. Complies with T27, T28, T29 Lead Department: Transportation Status: 84. Reduce the Impacts of Freight and Construction Vehicles in Aspen Conduct a study of ways to reduce truck traffic in Aspen through alternative means of freight delivery. Consider prohibiting dump trucks, delivery trucks, semis, and other heavy vehicles in Aspen during certain hours of the day or on certain days of the week. Consider establishing a freight consolidation and redistribution center at or near the AABC or other places in the Roaring Fork Valley. Establish a system for improving regulation of parking for construction vehicles. Complies with T47, T48, T49 Lead Department: Transportation Status: 85. Park and Ride Consider establishing permit -only park -and -ride spaces somewhere near the hospital for use by residents of upper Castle Creek Road. Complies with T6 Lead Department: Transportation Status: 86. Improve Traffic Safety and Enforcement Improve enforcement of traffic regulations on Main Street. Consider reducing the posted speed limit for traffic on Highway 82 between Truscott and the Castle/Maroon intersection. Redesign the intersection and area around the Post Office and the Clarks Market parking lot to improve traffic flow and pedestrian safety. Complies with T32, T33, T34 Lead Department: Transportation Status: Page 17 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 87. Study an Impact Fee for Commercial Users of Public Spaces Study the impacts of commercial operations using public spaces and, if warranted, consider a fee system to cover costs of repair and maintenance. Such fees could be used to support educational programs, habitat restoration, enforcement, volunteer efforts and administration costs. Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #6 Lead Department: Parks Department Status: 88. Infill and Redevelopment: Site Specific Study Study adding a full or practical floor at the Red Brick Arts Center for affordable office space, art studios. a community gallery, and/or housing units dedicated to the non -profits. Complies with Action Items: Arts, Culture and Education #18 Lead Department: Community Development Status: 89. Study the Effects of Low -Paying Jobs Study the effects of low -paying jobs on the health of the community. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #32 and Economic Sustainability Section generally Lead Department: Status: 90. Create A Learning Community Explore ways to create a learning community for both the public and private sectors. One that takes an action, reflects on the action, and bases its next related action on that reflection. One that makes local decisions understanding the real causes of problems and with long-term consequences in mind. Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 4 Lead Department: Status: 91. Support Locally Owned Businesses Study and consider ways to support a diversity of small, locally owned businesses in the commercial core as opposed to national chain stores and tourist -only oriented retail. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #34 Lead Department: Status: 92. Vertical Zoning — Neighborhood Office Study locations for a neighborhood office zone district. This concept can incorporate vertical zoning and alley uses. Develop a Neighborhood Office Zone District. Rezone areas to neighborhood office. Eliminate the option of single family housing in this zone district. Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 10 Lead Department: Community Development Status: 93. Gallager Amendment Study ways to better enforce collection of the sales tax and the impacts of the Gallager Amendment. Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 15 Lead Department: Finance Department Status: Page 18 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 • 0 94. Study Potential to Limit Chain Stores Investigate efforts undertaken by other communities for managing the impacts of chain stores. Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 16 Lead Department: Community Development and/or Finance Department Status: 95. Housing for Visiting Artists: Coordination of Vacancies The Aspen/Snowmass Council for the Arts will work with the Housing Authority to coordinate vacancies through a central resource/office that tracks current and projected housing development and vacancies. Complies with Action Items: Arts, Culture and Education #16 Lead Department: Housing Authority / The Aspen/Snowmass Council for the Arts Status: 96. Housing for Visiting Artists Increase short and long-term affordable housing opportunities for arts groups, visiting artists, and educational workers. Complies with Action Items: Arts, Culture and Education #14 Lead Department: The Aspen/Snowmass Council for the Arts Status: 97. Housing for Visiting Artists: Incentive Programs Look for ways, such as tax credits or other incentives, to encourage property owners to allow utilization of vacant housing (such as un-rented ADU's) for temporary and event -related housing needs for non- profit groups. Complies with Action Items: Arts, Culture and Education #15 Lead Department: The Aspen/Snowmass Council for the Arts Status: 98. Study Feasibility of a County Real Estate Transfer Tax Explore the legality and potential implications of a County Real Estate Transfer Tax. The tax would be intended to dedicate 1 % of sales to a pool of money to be split between open space purchases and development/preservation of affordable housing opportunities in the County, similar to what is done in the City of Aspen. This would require a state constitutional amendment. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #51, Goal G Lead Department: Community Development & Attorneys Office Status: This would require a state constitutional amendment 99. Improve the Pedestrian Experience and Streetscape on Main Street In conjunction with ongoing transportation planning projects on Main Street, improve the pedestrian experience and Streetscape. Complies with Action Items: Economic Sustainability # 14 Lead Department: Community Development Status: Page 19 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 ADDENDUM: Completed Action Items The following Action Items have been completed as of November 1999, and have therefore been removed from the list of current work program Action Items. A. Future Land Use Map This land use map will formalize the Community Growth Boundaries, identify what land uses and densities are anticipated in the Aspen metro area, and identify parks and open space parcels that are important to preserve and which should be maintained and/or acquired. This future land use map will provide a vision and guide for future land use decisions in the Aspen metro area and depict what the community can expect to look like in 2020. Complies with "Action Item Number one" as a top priority Lead Department: Community Development; Team Departments: Housing and Parks Status: provisions for final map underway B. Encouraging Affordable Housing Provision/Development Consider only allowing lodges to be redeveloped as Affordable Housing rather than as expensive free- market units to reflect our need for housing for permanent residents. Complies with Growth Section Action Item #12 Lead Department: Community Development Status: Completed: Lodge Preservation Code revisions C. Modify the Accessory Dwelling Unit Program Consider modifications to the Accessory Dwelling Unit program to encourage units to be developed which will be occupied and which offer comfortable living conditions. Complies with Housing Section Action Items # 13 Lead Department: Community Development Status: Code amendments completed D. Open Space Replacement Property Study and evaluate the idea of revising the city's Sixth Penny Ordinance to require that replacement property be established prior to an election for trading of open space. Study the benefits and costs of identifying the replacement parcel in the ballot language. The intention of identifying the parcel would be to help the electorate in evaluating the benefit of the conversion or replacement interest. Complies with Action Items: Parks, Open Space and the Environment #20 Lead Department: Parks Department & Attorneys Office Status: Completed 11 /99 C:/mydocs/aacp/CC actionplan.doc Page 20 AACP Action Plan 03/02/00 LEGEND: 117 FILL; sand and gravel, clayey, silty, with cobbles and small boulders, medium dense, moist, dark NA brown and black. more clayey with trash in Boring 4. SAND (Slut); slightly silty to silty, slightly clayey, scattered gravel, medium dense, moist, brown. Some organics in Boring 4. SAND AND GRAVEL (GP —GM); with cobbles, possible boulders, slightly silty, dense, slightly moist, brown. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2—inch I.D. California liner sample. Drive sample; standard penetration test ( SPT ), 1 3/8—inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D — 1586. Drive sample blow count; indicates that 40 blows of a 140—pound hammer falling 30 inches were 40/12 required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. 10 Indicates slotted PVC pipe installed in boring to depth shown. Practical drilling refusals Where shown above bottom of log, indicates that multiple attempts were made to advance the boring. NOTES: 1. Exploratory barings were drilled on February 4, 2000 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were not measured and the logs of exploratory borings are drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory boring locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling or when checked about 12 days later. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( % ) DO = Dry Density ( pcf ) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve. —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. Pb = Total Lead Content ( ppm ) t inn tan I HEPWORTH — PAWLAK I I FGFND AND NOTES `ia. 3 I -- ` GEOTECHNICAL, INC. U Z J Q _U TZT U LU H O L1J Q J Q a F- O a LU 2 m O W J Ln Q (n U) W LU H 0 H Q 0 Q J LL 0 a > > c > CE > cc m m m m a C7 C; (D m C7 a C U Y ll!m^ vJ C m C m a m C m C C C ? a) N a) > Cll c� m M cc U) C7 v ii u v u= cn v u o w rn o ¢ r a O a LO 00 U r- O w w � _ r Z H O LL w Z O a ¢ a U � r Z O N U X r N N � � O a m H � r o � - r � o o-i w Lf) N C} N cc N m r LO a a Z Z co 0 a am o > Q > co H p 2 a ¢ w Z O r- W � 2 i O w LO L9 N z a o a N 00 O N Z � U LO z ra r- N o a _ Lo .— a O o W a � ¢ O z I.,J II I I II I I �I II! BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 BORING 4 21 /5.10/0 27/7,10/0 40/6.10/0 Pb=1S9 5 20/0 50/10 12/6.10/0 6/12 e Pb=180 40/12 WC=18.5 -200=54 " WC=25 (D L'' +4448 -200=5 a) I 10 19/12 14/12 10 I s � a WC=20.2 DD=106 n. a� O WC=5.9 -200=42 � +4=40 _20Q=12 15 20/12 �'f 10/12 15 20 20 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3. 1 4—^ , 1 HFPWORTH — PAWI_AK 1 din 7 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. a, EXISTING PONDS M'CC STREET RIO GRANDE PA L inn 14n HEPWORTH -- PAWLAK f LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1 City of Aspen Park Department March 2, 2000 Page 4 warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK Daniel E. Hardin, P Reviewed By: ,Jr.,P attachments O QVCHNICAL, INC. aau a► uu�?�y ...,, i � e 24 3 H-P GEOTECH City of Aspen Park Department March 2, 2000 Page 3 Fill Quality: The fill at the site contains organics and some trash but appears to be mainly clayey to silty sand and gravel. The measured total lead contents were 159 ppm in Boring 2 and 180 ppm in Boring 3. Typically, the action level in the Aspen area for mine tailings is 1000 ppm total lead. Based on the test results, it appears that the fill at this site does not contain significant mine tailings. The fill is variable and is probably not suitable for support of the proposed structures. Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed skateboard park construction, we recommend retaining wall spread footings or slabs placed on the undisturbed natural granular soil designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Footings should be a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns (if any). The existing fill encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural soils. As an alternative, design footing grades could be re-established with compacted structural fill. The fill should consist of on -site or imported sandy gravel soils devoid of topsoil, organics and oversized rock compacted to at least 100% of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Footings should be provided with adequate cover above their bearing elevations for frost protection. Placement of footings at least 42 inches below the exterior grade is typically used in this area. Retaining structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for the on -site soil (excluding organics and debris) as backfill. Slabs -on -Grade: The natural on -site soils, exclusive of fill, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free -draining gravel should be placed beneath deeper level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with less than 50 % passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve. Prior to fill placement, the existing fill should be further evaluated or completely removed from beneath the slab areas. All fill materials for support of slabs should be compacted to at least 95 % of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of on -site or imported sandy gravel soils devoid of debris, vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. Limitations: This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no H-P GEOTECH aA Council ExhibiA— By Approved , 19 Ordinance _ RESOLUTION NO. (SERIES OF 1993) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO APPROVING THE RIO GRANDE MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council (hereinafter "Council) has been requested to endorse the Rio Grande Master Plan which has been adopted by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission; and WHEREAS, Council directed staff to prepare a master plan for the Rio Grande property, specifically the area between Rio Grande Drive and the Roaring Fork River; and WHEREAS, staff, together with community members and representatives of- community organizations, identified general land use concepts for future development of the property; and WHEREAS, a land use map was created that identifies specific areas of the Rio Grande property with general land use themes and is incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, other maps were prepared and incorporated into the Master Plan to act as guides in ensuring that development of specific uses can be accommodated on the property; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Rio Grande Master Plan and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, development review for site specific projects for the Rio Grande parcels shall be reviewed through the Specially Planned Area development review; and WHEREAS, the Council reviewed the proposed Master Plan at a worksession held January 7, 1993 and provided comments to staff and the Rio Grande Group; and City Council Exhibit- [_> • proved , 19 — yordinance RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ADOPTING THE RIO GRANDE MASTER PLAN Resolution No. 92- WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission (hereinafter "Commission") have the responsibility and the authority to adopt comprehensive plans for Aspen; and WHEREAS, the Commission and City Council 9i.rected staff to prepare a Master Plan for the publically owned Rio Grande property, with attention focused primarily on the area between Rio Grande Drive and the Roaring Fork River; and WHEREAS, staff, together with community members and representatives of community organizations forming the Rio Grande Group, identified general land use goals and recommendations for future development of the property; and WHEREAS, a land use map has been created that identifies specific areas of the Rio Grande property with general land use themes, which map shall be adopted with the Master Plan and incorporated therein; and WHEREAS, three other land use maps have been prepared and included in Appendix A of the Master Plan to ensure that development of specific uses can be accommodated on the property, however, these maps are intended to be used only as guides; and WHEREAS, the Commission has formally reviewed the Master Plan at regularly scheduled meeting April 20, 1993; o.id WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing was held by the Commission on June 8, 1993 to consider the Master Plan for the Rio Grande property. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby adopt the Rio Grande Master Plan. APPROVED by the Commission at their regular meeting on June 8, 1993. ATTEST: ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Jan Carney, Deputy City Clerk Jasmine Tygre, Chairperson TO: THRU: THRU: FROM: DATE: RE: 0 MEMORANDUM Mayor and Council Amy Margerum, City Manager Diane Moore, City Planning • 1x4a jV, Direct Leslie Lamont, Senior Planner June 14, 1993 Rio Grande Master Plan - Endorsement SUMMARY: Attached is the Rio Grande Master Plan that the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted at a June 8, 1993 public hearing. Staff was under the impression that a conceptual SPA master plan was being created for approval by Council. The City Attorney has determined that the document and related maps are in fact a "Master Plan" because the plan does not address development issues for site specific proposals. A plan that establishes general guidelines and goals should be used as a Master Plan to guide future development. When site specific development is proposed the full SPA review process will then be used for development review. Fortunately, a master plan does not expire after two years like a conceptual SPA Master Plan. The Master Plan remains in effect until it is either amended or superseded by another plan. The various organizations that participated in the Master Planning process thought that conceptual SPA review was being accomplished and only final SPA review (a 2 step vs. 4 step review process) would be necessary before their particular development. However, staff recently amended the Land Use Code to enable an applicant to consolidate the four step SPA review process into a two step review process, similar to PUD review. Therefore, if an applicant submits an application for development soon after the Master Plan is adopted and the proposal is consistent with the Master Plan, a consolidated SPA review may be appropriate. The Planning and Zoning Commission adopts a Master Plan by Resolution and Council shall endorse the Commission's adopted plan. Please see the attached Resolution adopting the Master Plan. CURRENT ISSUES: Staff has been working with a citizen committee, the Rio Grande Group, to formulate the Rio Grande Master Plan. The Group has recommended several land use actions and developed three land use development scenarios. Those three scenarios are represented by the land use maps provided in Appendix A of the plan. The maps are intended to serve as guides for site specific development. Based upon the Planning and Zoning Commissioner comments at the last meeting, the three "Potential Development 0 171 Julie Ann Woods, 08:41 AM 3/8/00 -0700, Fwd: Rio Grande Master Plan/SPA X-Sender: juliew@comdev X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 08.41.20 -0700 To: Joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us From: Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Fwd: Rio Grande Master Plan/SPA Cc: Jeffw@ci.aspen.co.us Joyce --I think we'll need to fast track this. Let's get someone assigned to this ASAP, even before an application comes in, so we can get a hearing scheduled, etc. otherwise all hell may break out at home... 2 step should be fine. any chance for getting through review and permit by may? JA. �cd es A V'L't I b 4` X-Sender: rebeccas@commons X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58 Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 15:40:07 -0700 To: juliew@ci.aspen. co. us From: Rebecca Schickling <rebeccas@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Rio Grande Master Plan/SPA Cc: scottc@ci.aspen.co.us, jeffw@ci.aspen.co.us Julie Ann, Well unfortunately for us, after reading the resolution, I believe we have to submit a development plan for this site specific use. Even though the adopted master plan has specific references to a skateboard se in a r< a resolution states "pursuant to the Rio Grande Master Plan and applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, development review for site speLific projects for the Rio Grande parcels shall be reviewed through the Specially Planned Area developmen review...." I did look at the Land Use Code under the section of SPA and it is a 4 step process but may be reduced to a 2 step process by the Planning Director if the full 4 step process would be redundant and serve no public purpose. May I request that we be allowed a 2 step process because a skateboard park is identified in the master plan? Also, if we submit an application next week do you have any idea of how long it may take us to get through the process? We are trying to look at breaking ground in mid to late May if possible. Thanks.... Rebecca Schickling Assistant Parks Director City of Aspen Printed for Joyce Ohlson <joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 Julie Ann Woods, 10:51 AM 3/8/00 -0700, Skateboard park X-Sender: juliew@comdev X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000 10,51,04 -0700 To: Jeffw@ci.aspen.co.us, Scottc@ci.aspen.co.us, Rebeccas@ci.aspen.co.us, Joyceo@ci. aspen. co. us From: Julie Ann Woods <juliew@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Skateboard park Cc: Russellg@ci.aspen.co.us, Stephenk@ci.aspen.co.us Okay -- Here's the scoop. I spoke with Russell regarding permits that may be needed for the skateboard park. He said that as long as there was no wall or structure higher than 6' that no permit would be necessary. I also explained that the expert bowl would likely have an excavation of 8', but that the grade would likely be brought up to the edge, or in no case exceed a 6' like -wall. The city does not currently require a grading and/or excavation permit (county does). The only other type of permit that I might think you may need is if you intend to light the park with additional lighting fixtures then you may need an electrical permit. Also, I presume there will be some sort of drain in the bowl. Russell, could you please verify whether or not either lights or a drain would require permits? Would ACSD require anything? it wouldn't be sanitation, but it would be storm water -- would a sand separator be required before it goes into the sewer?. please advise all. thanks for everyone's time on this. JA. Printed for Joyce Ohison <joyceo@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 THE CITY OF ASFEN PLANNING AND ZONIINGCOMMISSION MEETING DATE: 04/18/2000 NAME OF PROJECT: SKATEBOARD PARK RIO GRANDE SPA CITY CLERK: Jackie Lothian STAFF: Nick Lelack WITNESSES: (1) Rebecca Schickling (4) Tammy Dawson (2) Scott Chism (5) Alan Osborn (3) Jon Busch (6) Mitch Haas EXHIBITS: 1 Staff Report ( X ) (Check If Applicable) 2 Affidavit of Notice ( X ) (Check If Applicable) 3 Board Criteria Sheet ( X ) (Check If Applicable) 4 Various maps, drawings bluelines (not in exhibits) MOTION: Ron Erickson moved to approve the Specially Planned Area Review to build a Skateboard Park and relocate the basketball courts on Rio Grande Site B finding that all of the criteria have been met and to adopt P&Z Resolution# 21-2000 with conditions: 1. All prior City of Aspen approvals shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Emergency vehicle access to the theatre shall be maintained. 3. Currently, the fire extinguisher demonstration classes are performed on the present basketball courts. The Parks Department shall consider a court surface that will allow for the continuation of these demonstration classes. 4. The Applicant shall relocate the existing conduit to the satisfaction of the Electric Department. 5. The Applicant shall install water facilities to the relocated drinking fountain at the entrance to Rio Grande Park. 6. A water spigot for the cleanout of the area should be provided. It may be possible to use the irrigation lines if there is no change in the back flow. 7. The applicant shall not track mud onto City streets during construction. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed on site during construction. 8. Prior to Construction: a. The Applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit for the removal of trees on site. b. The Applicant shall submit and the City Engineer shall approve a drainage plan for the site. Drainage shall be controlled in a way that is beneficial to use the flood routing concept which would control the water flow from drainage through depressions in the landscaping. 9. The Applicant shall provide a Trolley System overlay on the Rio Grande Park site plan to City Council, demonstrating how the proposed skateboard park, basketball court, and landscaping would affect the potential for a Trolley System. Transportation rights for Rio Grande Park shall be superior to all other rights in the future. Tim Mooney second. Roll call vote: Buettow, yes; Erickson, yes; Haneman, yes; Tygre, no; Hunt, no; Mooney, yes; Blaich, yes. APPROVED 5-2. VOTE: YES 5 NO 2 ROBERT BLAICH YES X NO _ JASMINE TYGRE YES _ NO _X_ ROGER HUNT YES _ NO _X_ TIMOTHY MOONEY YES X NO _ ROGER HANEMAN YES _X_ NO _ STEVEN BUETTOW YES _X_ NO _ RON ERICKSON YES X NO CHARLES VRESILOVIC alternate 0 0 Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District Sy Kelly * Chairman Paul Smith * Treas Michael Kelly * Secy April 4, 2000 Nick Lelack Community Development 130 S. Galena Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Skateboard Park Dear Nick: John Keleher Frank Loushin Bruce Matherly, Mgr The proposed skateboard park is located within our service area. Connection to the public wastewater system is not being proposed. The project, as proposed, will have no impact upon the public wastewater system. Sincerely, Bruce Matherly District Manager 565 N. Mill St.,Aspen, CO 81611 / (970)925-3601 / FAX (970) 925-2537 sc��rr�ri� P4.-AIV ,,I�,Al �/;' 144 NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL AC'lCIN BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. A PORTION OF LOT 1, BEING SITUATED ANPREW MCFARLIN CONDOMINIUMS CITY OF A5PEN CENTER FOR VISUAL ARTS EXISTING CONDITIONS /TOPOGRAPHY MAP OF: RIO GRANDE PARK IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP CITY OF ASPEN, COUNTY OF PIKIN. SHEET 1 OF 2 HILL MOUSE CONDOMINIUMS GRAPHIC SCALE ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 60 ft. SOPRIS ENGINEERING - LLC CIVIL CONSULTANTS 502 MAIN STREET, SUITE A3 CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 (970) 704-0311 LUX PLACER OKLAMOMA FLAT ei_�IVI510N 10, RANGE 84 WEST OF �J'HE 6th P.M. RIDGE OF RED MOUNTAIN RED MOUNTAIN RANCH P� ROARING y. SCALE: 1' = 1000' ASPEN �i� Nsmu, �fR A E,+ / c� I m /ASPEN xl o F SnVAi TENT � « SITE TH sr. u in -1G ST. Y ~ PUPPY FR CIS ST. HALUM S cn i. � � N It K/NS AyE C) � U) In AN W VE. c� 0 CITY OF ASPEN `-' m cpo ER � � O VICINITY MAP 4 DuANrAVE _ S NOTES.- DATE OF SURIVFF FEBURARY 2000. .2j DATE OF PRA'PARATION.• FEBUR4RY 2000. S) BASIS OF 5ZTf-FF- TBE RECORDED PL,4T OF R10 CRANDE SlBDlVfS/ON, P.4R10IIS 04rl1lR PLOTS & DOCUAfkNT.S OF RECORD, AND THE FOUND PROPERTY CORNE:q A(ONClAIENTS, 4S S11OK2V 4/ BASIS OF TZFVATION.• T11F /998 CITY OF ASPEN DRE.YFL BftRREL CONTOUR DATUM r AB1CB 1S BASED ON AN ELEVATION OF 77.20. BB' /NAVD 199Bj ON FJVF NCS STATION s 1,59" 0 BASIS Of? BAAR1NC.• A BEARING OF S 74"14 O.2 " E BETKFTY TBE 1,988 CITY OF ,4SPEN--CPS CONTROL A(ONUMFzVFS 3. 6 ' .4Ll7A(INCiA/ CAPS STAA(PFD CPS PLS 29650 AT T11E STREET 1NTERSECTIO,'VS OF 6TB' I6'OPA'INS AND REST END I110PAXYT 6/ THE A'XlS1TINC CONDITIONS/TOPOCRAPBY AfJF IN NO K47 REPRESENTS A BOUNDARY SbrRVF4r OF TBE SUBJECT PROPERTY. FOR ALL INFORAY,4T10N RECARDINC EASEA(ENTS, RICHTS-0E-#,4F AND/OR TITLE OF RECORD, SE RELIED UPON FffF 1F"S LISTED IN NOTE S. GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: 1. THE LOCATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES HAVE BEEN PLOTTED BASED ON UTILITY MAPS, CONSTRUCTION/DESIGN PLANS, OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY UTILITY COMPANIES AND ACTUAL FIELD LOCATIONS IN SOME INSTANCES. THESE UTILITIES, AS SHOWN, MAY NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO CONTACT ALL UTILITY COMPANIES FOR FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SURVEYOR S' STATEAlFNT I, A64RF S. BECAZER, DO BEREBY STATE TBAT THIS SURVEY AAS PREPARED BY SOPRIS ENCINEA'RINC, LLC. FOR TBE CITY OF ASPEN PARA_S DEPARTA(ENT AND THAT IT 1S TRCE AND OF Ali' BELIEF AND A'NOIPLEDGE: � �°\` ?' s:•B��SrF�% YLER, L.P. g'Qi 2�M43 ;'15 2005SITE