The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutLand Use Case.1022 E Hyman Ave.0073.2007.ASLU.~~. 0073.2007.ASLU 1022 E HYMAN AVE STREAM MARGIN REVIEW 273718110002 1 . r ...1 11 1..1 -1 _ 4 1 THE CITY OF ASPEN City of Aspen Community Development Department CASE NUMBER 0073.2007.ASLU PARCEL ID NUMBER 273718110002 PROJECTS ADDRESS 1022.E.HYMAN PLANNER ERRIN EVANS CASE DESCRIPTION STREAM MARGIN REVIEW REPRESENTATIVE JOHN MCCORMICK DATE OF FINAL ACTION 10/21/2009 CLOSED BY ANGELA SCOREY on 12/15/2009 RESOLUTION N0.33, (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENYING A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1022 E. HYMAN AVENUE, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNITS 1 & 2, EUBANK CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-181-10-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from John McCormick, requesting approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for Stream Margin Review for the construction of a deck on the second floor of an existing duplex located at 1022 E. Hyman Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant's property is located in the Residential Multi-Family Zone District in an Environmentally Sensitive Area as defined by the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicant had a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on August 11, 2008 and received comments from referral agencies prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the Stream Margin Review Standards and recommended denial o f the Stream Margin Review; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal does not meet all applicable development standards; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on October 21, 2008, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 33, Series of 2008, by a six to one (6 - 1) vote, denying the Stream Margin Review request to construct a deck on the second floor of an existing duplex; and, RECEPTION#: 565305,12/15/2009 at 09:40:52 AM, P&Z Resolution 33, Series of 2008 1 OF 2, R $11.00 Doc Code RESOLUTION Page 1 of 2 Janice K. Vos Caudill, Pitkin County, CO WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby denies the Stream Margin Review. Section 2: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: I f any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity ofthe remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Aspen on this 21 st day of October, 2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING CO~IM~ION: l/' T ~t,AA A - jim True, Special Counsel LJ F~pamer, Chair ATTEST: ED /1 I *ALL>0 Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk P&Z Resolution 33, Series of 2008 Page 2 0 f 2 mâ€¢ 4 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 LJ Erspamer opened the regular Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting in the Sister Cities Meeting Room at 4:30pm. Commissioners Mike Wampler, Cliff Weiss, Stan Gibbs, Jim DeFrancia, LJ Erspamer, Bert Myrin and Dina Bloom were present. Brian Speck was excused. Staff in attendance were Jim True, Special Counsel; Errin Evans, Jennifer Phelan, Jason Lasser, Ben Gagnon, Chris Bendon, Community Development; Trish Aragon, Engineering; Brian Flynn, Parks; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk. MINUTES LJ Erspamer made corrections to page 5 & 6. Stan Gibbs made a correction to page 6. MOTION: Cliff Weiss moved to approve the minutes ofSeptember 23, 2008; seconded by Stan Gibbs. All in favor, APPROVED. COMMENTS Jennifer Phelan distributed updates for the land use code. DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Bert Myrin received a notice for the ZG Master Plan so he will recuse himself from that portion of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: ~~ 1022 EAST HYMAN - STREAM MARGIN REVIEW LJ Erspamer opened the public hearing for 1022 East Hyman Avenue, Stream Margin Review. Jim True was provided with public notice and it was in order. Errin Evans stated that John McCormick was doing some renovations and would like to construct a deck on the second floor of the existing duplex; the duplex is located less than 100 feet from the high water mark; it falls under stream margin review. Evans said the proposed deck located on the second floor under the existing deck that is on the third floor; the proposed deck is small but does not meet one of the stream margin review standards. Evan said that standard number 9 has 2 requirements; no development takes place on a horizontal plane from the top of slope within 15 feet and progressive height plane that goes 45 degrees from the top of bank. Evans said the entire deck falls into both areas; there are criteria to apply for a variance but this application was not qualified for those criteria for special review. The Planning & Zoning Commission has the authority to approve, to approve with conditions, or deny this application. Staff recommends that the 2 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 Commission deny the application based on code requirements. No drainage permit was required, which is part ofthe requirements for stream margin review. Cliff Weiss asked when the setback was established at 15 feet. Evans replied the City had a separate stream margin review study; it was a top of bank study. Jennifer Phelan said the code changes over time; even though something might have been permitted at a certain time, if it was legally established it's allowed to continue and if added onto or changed the building as the code changes, the building needs to meet the code. Evans said the new changes should decrease the non-conformity and not increase the non-conformity. Weiss said that it was obvious that this building has been there a long time. John McCormick stated that it was moved there in the mid 70s from Durant Street. Weiss stated that he was trying to get a timeline of what happened when along the way. Evans said the renovations that they are doing inside are permitted. Jim DeFrancia asked if the purpose of the ordinance was to alleviate negative impacts on the river, have you determined that this will cause negative impacts on the river. Evans responded that there was no drainage plan to see i f there was an increase in impervious surface; the city engineer was present. Phelan said that with the progressive height plane you are looking at something that was established to create less visual impacts from the river. Trish Aragon stated that you were looking at negative impacts to the river environmentally by adding a deck it could have a negative impact on the river and they haven't shown how they will do that or how that will be accomplished. Stan Gibbs asked the difference between the two code sections and what their intents were. Evans replied that one was a use and one is a structure. Phelan responded that typically the non-conforming use is something that was legally established and the zoning changed over time so the use was allowed to continue and non-conforming structures were seen typically with older houses there might not have been setbacks and now there were setbacks from property lines. Gibbs asked ifthe use was within the zone district. Phelan said it was a permitted use. Bert Myrin asked i f this was in the environmental sensitive area. Evans replied yes. Myrin asked if under 26.575.150(d)(a) this required an outdoor lighting plan; he asked if one was submitted. Evans responded that there was no lighting proposed. Myrin asked ifthe applicant was asking for a variance. Evans responded the applicant was basically looking to override the code. Phelan said that there were certain developments that can meet certain standards that do not have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission; ifyou cannot meet those 3 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 standards then it triggers Stream Margin Review, which comes under P&Z with a set of standards. Phelan said the applicant was requesting a variance from one of those criteria; there were two review criteria to consider. Jim DeFrancia asked staff ifthey were recommending denial because they haven't complied. Phelan responded that staff was saying that the applicant was requesting a variance from one of the stream margin review standards and the request does not meet the variance standards. John McCormick, applicant, stated that this property was his sole asset. McCormick applied to do this remodel and asked for the decks offof his living room and kitchen and he voluntarily went in and took out the decks but the doors remain. McCormick distributed several maps and letters to the commission; he said that his lot was complicated with the top of slope. McCormick said that in fact the river was quite a ways away from his house between the river and his house was a small island and a tributary, which sometimes flows and sometimes not. McCormick said that he was prepared to put up an orange fence and a plastic fence so the potential dust and settlement doesn't go into the river; he was sensitive to living on the river and wants to protect it. McCormick said that he was proposing a deck of 177 square feet; he said that below this proposed deck was a patio and above it was an existing deck that was larger than the proposed deck. McCormick said that he would replace the wooden banister and replace it with glass and the same on the proposed deck. McCormick said that he had a hardship because if it was a different kind of lot there wouldn't be an issue with the decks. McCormick proposed a cantilevered deck without pillars. McCormick said that the engineering was dealt with in the construction management plan. Jeffrey Halferty, representative for the applicant, said that the questions on process were taken in well and John's point ofthe edge ofthe river being one side and the tributary and the top of bank was shown in the one drawing. Halferty said that this was the only place the deck could be built and the decks were as modest as they can be; there was an existing dry well on the property for drainage but the surface area was less than what was required. Cliff Weiss asked the distance from the comer of Unit 1 patio to a mark that is called edge of creek; the closest part. McCormick replied about 10 feet. Bert Myrin asked if there was a difference between the 2 decks being proposed and to the area being impacted. McCormick said that the ones below would be slightly 4 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21, 2008 less. Myrin asked if one ofthe proposed decks was closer to high water. McCormick replied deck 4 is closer to the high water line. Halferty said it was about 6 feet. Stan Gibbs said that the criteria were also the issue. Jennifer Phelan replied that non-conformity was allowed to be maintained, allowed to be decreased but it is not allowed to be expanded; the deck would be an expansion. Gibbs asked i f the non- conformity would be the setback from the high water. LJ Erspamer asked ifthere was any input from the neighbors. Evan replied there was not regarding the deck itself; there was concern about the construction materials being stored outside for the renovation and when the construction mitigation officer went everything was in order. Public Comments: Dee Malone, public, said that the purpose of the riparian guideline was to protect the river by preventing destabilization to the banks and to maintain riparian vegetation, which is an essential to bank stability. Malone said that the bank above would not increase destabilization but would suggest increasing the runoff from the deck into the back yard but the increase in the deck doesn't impact riparian vegetation. DeFrancia said it was very clear that this improvement however modest is going to occur in an area where no new development is permitted. DeFrancia said that he did not find any hardship but where the house is situated doesn't seem like the addition ofthe desk will cause any egregious circumstance that already exists and Dee's comments helped the applicant. Weiss said that if the third floor deck were removed it can't be rebuilt because it was non-conforming; his real concern was the precedence setting because this was one of many structures along the river that are non-conforming. Weiss suggested a compromise in renovating the third floor deck. Myrin said the non-conformity was clear in the code that non-conformities could not be expanded or enlarged. Jim True said that it was P&Z's desecration to determine if there was an expansion to the non-conformity, it can't be allowed. True said that i f you determine that it is not an expansion of a non-conformity then you can approve it but i f you decide it is an expansion of a non-conformity then you really don't have the choice to allow it. 5 ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 21,2008 Mike Wampler said that all of his issues were spoken about. Weiss asked i f there was a deck on the second floor originally. McCormick replied no. Weiss said so this is an expansion. Dina Bloom agreed that there was not a hardship without a deck. Bloom said that she was concerned with the doors being placed prior to the decks being built. McCormick responded the doors were in the building permit. Gibbs said that he disagreed with Cliff on setting precedence because every application was different. Gibbs said the non-conformity was the distance from the high water line and he said that the vertical line wasn't any closer; it seemed to qualify for an exemption from having stream margin review. Gibbs said that he did not think that this increased the non-conformity significantly. Erspamer asked where the expansion was going to be located. Evan replied it was the 10'6" was what was noted on their plans and she over-noted where the 15 foot was located. Erspamer said that you cannot add precedence by adding another non-conformity to a non-conformity under the code. ~ MOTION: Bert Myrin moved to deny the application for a Stream Margin Review ~ ~ at 1022 E Hyman based upon the expansion of non-conformity; seconded by Cliff ~ Weiss. Roll call vote: Wampler, yes; Gibbs, no; DeFrancia, yes; Bloom, yes; Weiss, yes; Myrin, yes; Erspamer, yes; Approved to deny 6- 1, CONTINUED PUBI,IC HEARING: ZG MASTER PLAN LJ Erspamer opened the continued public hearing. Erspamer said that if the public had a long comment something in writing should be submitted. Ben Gagnon said that on September 2nd they went through parts 1 and 2 0 f the application to the ZG Master Plan. Gagnon said that traffic information was provided. Gagnon said that ifthere were a limited amount of office on the first floor ofZupancis and employee housing on the second and third floors the vehicle trips would drop considerably. Gagnon said that this traffic study was about which uses generate a lot of traffic and which uses generate less traffic painting an overall picture of the mitigation necessary. Gagnon said this was a master plan painting a picture of a puzzle with an idea to plan the larger picture with the understanding that each piece still needs to come forward in a land use review process before the P&Z, before the Council and most likely before the citywide electorate in terms of elections in the future. 6 MEMORANDUM rc): City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner ~A THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Community Development Directoâ‚¬~3> DATE OF MEMO: September 23,2008 MEETING DATE: October 21, 2008 RE: 1022 E. Hyman Avenue - Stream Margin Review APPLICANT /OWNER: ~TAFF RECOMMENDATION: John McCormick Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny this request to build in an area REPRESENTATIVE: restricted by Stream Margin Review. John McCormick SUMMARY: LOCATION: The applicant has requested approval to construct a Address - 1022 E. Hyman Avenue; deck on the second floor of an existing duplex in the Legal Description - Unit 1 &2, Eubank Stream Margin Review area. The applicant requests a Subdivision; Parcel Identification variance frorn one of the Review Criteria. Number - 2737-181-10-002 . i. 1 1. I r JI,4-L CURRENT ZONING & USE Located in the Residential Multi- Family (RMF) zone district, .7 j. y ; t.2, u.4 -'.L t.-C=A, 1 containing a duplex. 1 ~/ - ':.3 1 -,1 2' ch. C 44444 . PROPOSED LAND USE: vr, 9, ~ . Â·Â·Â· vr ..Â· 7Â£,v f.â‚¬,Â·!0. The Applicant is requesting - - ..f / permission to construct a deck in the -- .u . :vi# j :r , ;'.~31.. 1 area restricted by Stream Margin .1, 0~ '~ ~ 9711,Â· Jm.W'im in ' Review. 1-/ MAM...Ff ': f Vt C- 1 p Photo of the subject property Revised 10/16/2008 Page 1 of 9 1- 4 . 9%1 gWq , , 1 1,z 4,1 j jn 1 Z\. 1 11 itrlyâ€¢ 1 0- -- Â·~..~% f 1 + ~.-,r~91-- ..4.37 i: -1 t---- 47 1 Trot L l tyliffil ... / -71....Â»- - , 1 %â€žI. 1. A-~-2., t -22 .~ 4/ f Â· 1 3 1 ovÂ»* T :. Â· /1 ip,D?,174>,~p~.,i-< / -.7 1.3 ' f ( 10 }â€¢I Â£ 1-'I [.1â€¢Â§ 4 - ... 1 4. V 114_1---11 1 ' 1 t 69 24. 4.- i N'; 2 n 0 1 0 1. i 1 . "" 3 --- A 3-2 9 : 4*471 -,- 2 2...1,64 - u. â€¢ 7>, 1 S 11 0 1 1 l f C 4 77 .1 ~ . f , TEE+~ ll' 3 + i 0 14"j.rv.%~ - Â£ 1,- t: - -T-1-;3,2-21 i. 1144Â£(~rriw1T-Â·4--_i#-1 \.r 1 2 0,4.SA-VE~ ' - l 4 J , 0 . O T-1 5-L - B...ll l 1 . cr H.to k -4 .% 6/.11 / .1-â€ž. 7.4-,2 ..~. W- 4U I 0.0 il /5 - t ? 2 - -- 4- 2 i --- h Â»49,17 9 --2 1-9.-3 1 2 2-,29~2Â«~Â·.-1/7 / '.I-' 1 2 - 52* 1 19*3 i E COCPER AVE *. f . i ' 4 : it 443-TtiÂ»~ x ~. 2 410-%*isvER:flf-14.-~ l 2 ----* 2 '-- -MZ .1.- L'--. . '4'' /.*-W ('--4-p- Â· -li 4 11 ,I 1- Er-4.11- ; 4 4- 1 1 r 7Â· i - v-x=<'- i -'.. I.U.&. -*,1- 1 1 -NE 1 1 1 1?62<41,----- J E=F .4~ Â·-727.-.-1 43,Â· ./ I. V. Â·1 Â»i Â·1 /* ' Â· 1 - ' ~~ 11 9;*f 'c f. . Legend N Subject Parcel ~ Roads W --- Cit,Â· Boundan 0 2 90 180 270 360 Feet 6/ater,jays S Figure 1. Vicinity Map BACKGROUND: The applicant proposes to construct a deck on the second floor of an existing duplex at 1022 E. 1-lyman Avenue. The construction of the deck is subject to Stream Margin Review because proposed construction is located within 100 feet of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River. When building within a certain distance of the Roaring Fork River or its tributaries heightened review of the proposal is required. Inclusive o f the review is the requirement that a structure be a minimum distance from the 'top of slope'.' Some ofthe items that are critically analyzed include increases to the base flood elevation. damage to vegetation, potential water pollution, location of structures in relation to the stream margin setback and lighting. ' Land Use Code Section 26.104.100 Definitions "Top of Slope - A line generally running parallel to a stream or river from which the development must be setback and which delineates the bank of the river or stream or other riparian areas as determined by the City Engineer." Revised 10/16/2008 Page 2 of 9 ~il#31 AND AVE The proposed deck encroaches into the 15 feet setback measured from the top of the slope. New development is not permitted in this area. The applicant is permitted to apply for a variance from the review standards under Special Review or an exemption to the Stream Margin Review under certain conditions; however this application does not qualify for Special Review or an exemption. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The applicant is requesting the following land use approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to construct a deck on the second floor ofthe existing duplex: â€¢ Stream Margin Review as pursuant to Section 26.435.040 of the Land Use Code. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a deck on the second floor of an existing duplex. rhe Stream Margin Review shall be considered at a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission who may approve. approve with conditions or deny the proposal. STAFF COMMENTS Variances from the Stream Margin Review Standards The applicant is proposing to construct the deck at the second floor level in the area prohibited by Stream Margin Review. A significant portion of the duplex already encroaches on this area, including the existing deck on the third floor. See Figure 2 below: 459 PR,ber/*.2 m8,0.>,1/ Le'4/7- 3 0,00 8157 8 254,6' ..1- .74 1 i Deck i'.i 'Â¥1 1._â€ž ,!&Â·M i'*il iliti' 6 1 4.1 1 ' ./. -1 '1 ii 1 ... : : 1/ht; pi~eu:,Â·pÂ·s'jili.'-i lt*Ijhlbfli i =ie-:r::-SE--39Â·=i=YE-4--tÂ·-Â·..1-.f- -~:I .Â· --Â·.Â·-Â·T ,;r --Dttz-F~3*EEL! *FT<---3-=6.-E.i, IN 1 .- : .2-...9-rtr.Â¥7TTfl Pi~ N' 4:1 1 h' D. 11 1 4. ( i, 1 2 ~ze,1/650' 03"f.Â· ~ t,| ,Â· ,Â·,-'..3-,-L 7--7 Â·: ...1---Â·- .i : 1-t if-- U...i. - -2.; 52'.2=- --- . 1 J'09",GW M; --r~--~9-lfÂ·64.'912Â£-- - 11.,2.1-< i.fi'i 213~ -:f---Â·.-4 %15% /439.6 79 . ,%11'. --'... I. , -10'6- 1 Figure 2: Encroachments into the Stream Margin setback area. Revised 10/16/2008 Page 3 of 9 Figure 2 shows the existing deck on the third floor and the proposed deck on the second floor. The line shown on Figure 2 on a 45 degree plane shows the height requirement as defined by Stream Margin Review in the Land Use Code, Section 26.435.040 (C) (9): 'All development outside the fifteen feet setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five degree angle from ground level at the top o f the slope." The defined setback area for Stream Margin Review is two-fold. The first part of Section 26.435.040 (C) (9) states that development must be located at least 15 feet back from the 'top of slope'. The entire proposed deck is located within the setback area on a horizontal plane. The second part of this section restricts development on a progressive height plane. Development is not permitted in the area that is delineated from the 'top of slope' up on a progressive line that is drawn at a 45 degree angle. The proposed deck is also located in the progressive angle plane measured vertically. The applicant is permitted to apply for a variance from the Stream Margin Review Standards. In this case, the proposed project does meet the review criteria to apply for a variance. To qualify for a variance an applicant can request a Special Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Commission considers whether the application may be approved or denied based on conformance with two different review criteria. The first criterion for Special Review does not apply because a conilict with the location of the 'top of slope' does not exist. The applicant provided a survey of the location of the proposed development, the 'top of slope' and the high water marks. The proposed development is clearly noted in the area prohibited by Stream Margin Review. The second criterion refers to the proposal meeting Stream Margin Review Standards that the Director of Community Development has based findings of denial. The applicant and the Director do not have any differing opinions on any of the standards. Non-conforming Structures I he existing portions of the duplex that are located in the setback area are considered a legally established non-conforming structure. In Chapter 26.312 of the Land Use Code there are restrictions on increasing or expanding non-conforming structures. Section 26.312.030 (C) (1) Nonconformities states that: "A non-conforming structure shall not be extended by an enlargement or expansion that increases the non-conformity. A non-conforming structure may be extended or altered in a manner that does not change or that decreases the non-conformity." The applicant is not able to increase the deck area because the proposed construction is located within the Stream Margin Review setback area and the duplex is currently considered a non- Revised 10/16/2008 Page 4 of 9 conforming structure. A non-conforming structure may not be altered so that the non-conformity is increased. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE: The Parks Department and the Engineering Department have concerns regarding the potential increase of impervious area on this property and how the construction impacts would be mitigated to ensure that there are no negative impacts on the Rearing Fork River. The applicant did not provide a drainage plan with the application. As a result the City Engineer was unable to analyze the project for negative impacts to the Roaring Fork River. RECOMMENDATION: Community Development Staff recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the Stream Margin Review request to construct a deck on the second iloor of the existing duplex. The request does not comply with the setback requirement. RECOMMENDED MOTION: Community Development Staff recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the variance application. Ifthe Planning and Zoning Commission decides to deny the application they can use the following motion: "I move to deny the application for Stream Margin Review located at 1022 E. Hyman Avenue." It' the Planning and Zoning Commission decides to approve the application, they may use the following resolution: 1 move to approve Resolution No33, Series of 2008, to approve the Stream Margin Review application for 1022 E. Hyman." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Staff findings Exhibit B - Application Revised 10/16/2008 Page 5 of 9 RESOLUTION NO. Â·Â·~3~ (SERIES OF 2008) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVING A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW, FOR THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1022 E. HYMAN AVENUE, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS UNITS 1 & 2, EUBANK CONDOMINIUMS, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 2737-181-10-002 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from John McCormick, requesting approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission for Stream Margin Review for the construction of a deck on the second floor of an existing duplex located at 1022 E. Hyman Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant's property is located in the Residential Multi-Family Zone District in an Environmentally Sensitive Area as defined by the Land Use Code; and WHEREAS, the Applicant had a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting on August 11,2008 and received comments from referral agencies prior to the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Department staff reviewed the application for compliance with the Stream Margin Review Standards; and WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the development proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a duly noticed public hearing; and WIIEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal does not meet all applicable development standards; and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission grants a variance to the Stream Margin Review standards. WIIEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the development proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Aspen Area Community Plan: and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission approves the Stream Margin Review request, with conditions to construct a deck on the second floor of an existing duplex, by a vote of five to zero (__ - -), and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and wel fare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT: Section 1: Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Title 26 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Stream Margin Review with the following conditions: 1. A comprehensive drainage plan is submitted and approved by the City Engineer. The plan must show that 80% of the suspended solids on the site are reduced. The City Engineer was unable to determine if the project has adverse environmental impacts. Information regarding impacts was not submitted. 2. A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking. staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. The construction footprint cannot extend into the stream margin review area. Section 2: The Applicant shall meet adopted building codes and requirements if and when a building permit is submitted. The building permit application shall include the following: a. A copy of the final P&Z Resolution. a. The conditions of approval printed on the cover page of the building permit set. b. A drainage plan. including an erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which maintains sediment and debris on-site during and after construction. If a ground recharge system is required. a soil percolation report will be required to correctly size the facility. A 5-year storm frequency should be used in designing any drainage improvements. c. An excavation stabilization plan, construction management plan, and drainage and soils reports pursuant to the Building Department's requirements. The construction management plan shall include an identification of construction hauling routes for review and approval by the City Engineer and Streets Department Superintendent. Also included in the CMP should be the following topic; erosion BMP's, soil stabilization, drainage impacts, and construction phasing plan. d. The building does not meet the minimum top-of-slope requirement and the forty- five (45) degree progressive height limit as required by Stream Margin Review standards. e. The Zoning Officer shall verify compliance with Floor Area Ratio standards. Section 3: The Applicant's design shall be compliant with all sections of the City of Aspen Municipal Code, Title 21 and all construction and excavation standards published by the Engineering and Parks Departments. 1. The Applicant shall submit a detailed plan for erosion control. Plans should detail location of fencing and type of fencing. This fencing, at a minimum, shall consist of barrier fencing at the top of slope. Beyond this barrier fencing shall be silt fencing installed to the City of Aspen standards. Additional erosion control measures may be necessary depending upon the site. Silt fencing shall be installed along the top of slope. The Applicant shall provide a detailed tree protection fencing plan at the time of building permit submittal and have the City of Aspen Parks Department inspect and approve of the erected silt and tree protection fencing prior to commencing construction. 2. A plan should show how the applicant will provide appropriate protection of the stream margin. Erosion control, drainage and tree protection. Provide a design for the location, means of installation, materials and how it will function. 3. An approved tree permit is required for tree removals. An approved tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying trees for removal, sizes, represented drip lines and a means and schedule for mitigation. Please contact the City Forester for more information 920-5120. The tree permit must be approved prior to an approved excavation permit. 4. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. 5. No excavation within the top of slope set back is allowed. A detailed plan on how the applicant will build the proposed structures and not damage or disturb the 15' set back. 6. Parks is requiring a detailed plan outlining access to and from the construction area. Access plans should detail all vegetation protection measures and construction staging areas. 7. The primary contractor shall submit a letter with the building permit application stating that they have read and understand the conditions of approval contained herein. 8. The Applicant shall provide a drainage plan prepared by a licensed engineer prior to building permit issuance that demonstrates that the properly' s historic runoff will not be increased as a result of the addition approved herein. 9. All exterior lighting shall meet the requirements of the City's Outdoor Lighting Code pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.150, Outdoor lighting. Section 5: All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein. unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 6: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 7: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity o f the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED BY the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City o f Aspen on this 21 st day of October, 2008. APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION: Jim True, Special Counsel LJ Erspamer, Chair ATTEST: Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk Exhibit A DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA) 26.435 ~TREAM MARGIN REVIEW STANDARDS REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS As pursuant to Section 26.435,040 (C) Stream Margin Review Standards of the City Land Use Code, an applicant that proposes any development within 100 feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River, must apply for review. A development proposal subject to Stream Margin Review may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission based on conformance with the following criteria: A. Standards of Review. 1.It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; Staff Finding The proposed deck is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area. The Special Flood Hazard Area is defined by the "Roaring Fork River Cross Sections / Stream Margin Review Line" maps located at City Hall in the Community Development Department. The base flood elevation will not be at#cted. Staff,finds this criterion to be met. W. / .6 j 4/6 4 m y552 ----2 / 4/0 + 1/ 0 c-- 2 1 \ - - - -4 0 / // 0 / 7/ - \ 7 /// 3 -1.- - h Â«4911 ,\ ~ 1 AREA OF -BEVELQ@MO+REC@A{*ATOIAOF 'BANK 1 66*El@!Ifirel*Mfuks*Â«AND\DOWNSTREAM h - ~MELAHCA -1009 OK EtÂ»MALOQATIONS Â»ID . 24<J N \ 1 v.if~UN~54%0.k,i*&9Â«Al'NE VOA BARK UNE NTO R/N ~ 1022 E Hyman Avenue ~ 4 / \\7,./-9141 Fx-z Ln\19-F~t Subject properly as it relates to the Stream Margin Review Area. Revised 10/16/2008 Page 6 of 9 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" Staff Finding The property already has a Fisherman's Easement. Staff,finds this criterion to be met, 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F. 1; Staff Finding There will be no construction located on the vegetation. The proposed deck will be a cantilever design. There will be an increase in impervious surface area as a result Of the deck. The applicant will be required to show how the extra runoffwill be contained on site. Staff does notfind this criterion to be met without a drainage plan. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; Staff Findinfr The applicant will be required to provide a construction management plan that demonstrates that the requirements can be met and it must be approved by the Engineering Department. The applicant will also be required to show that the dry well on the property can accommodate the increased flows to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Similar to the previous response, there will be an increase in impervious surtlice area as a result of the deck. The applicant will be required to show how the extra runoffwill be contained onsite. The Engineering Department stated that they are unable to determine if the project does not have an adverse environmental impact. A comprehensive drainage plan will need to be submitted which shows an 80% total suspended solids reduction of the site. All of these requirements must be met at the time Of building permit submittal. Staff does not.find this criterion to be met. 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; Staff Findinx The water course will not be altered or relocated. Staff.finds this criterion to be met. Revised 10/16/2008 Page 7 of 9 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; Staff Finding 7'hi.%' does not apply. The water course will not be altered or relocated, Staff,Ands this criterion to be met. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100-year flood plain; Staff FindinH No permits have been submitted. Staff does not find this criterion to be met. 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100- year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; Staff Finding No landscaping is proposed in this application. The cantilevered deck will have no impact on the vegetation in the riparian area. Stat.ffinds this criterion to be met. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; Staff Finding The proposed deck does not meet this requirement. The deck is located within the setback area, measured.from the top of slope. Staffdoes not.find this criterion to be met. 10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; Staff Finding There is no lighting proposed with this project, Stafffinds this criterion to be met. 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Staff Finding The applicant has provided a certified survey ofthe site. Staffhas no reason to believe that the architectural drawings or the survey is inaccurate. Stafffinds this criterion to be met. Revised 10/16/2008 Page 8 of 9 STREAM MARGIN REVIEW SECTION 26.435.040 (E) SPECIAL REVIEW An applicant can request a variance from the Stream Margin Review Standards. A variance is processed as a Special Review and the Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority to determine whether the application may be approved, approved with conditions, or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado Professionally Licensed Surveyor shows a different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; Staff Finding 1 here are no conflicts in regard to the location of the 'top of bank' on this property. The survey provided by the applicant shows the proposed deck to be nonconforming. Staff does riot lind this criterion to be met. 2. The proposed development meets the Stream Margin Review Standard(s) upon which the Community Director had based the finding of denial; Staff Finding The proposed deck does not meet some of the standards .for Stream Margin Revie-w. Development in the Stream Margin Review area must meet all the standards. Each of the Stream Margin Review Standards are discussed above. Staff does not find this criterion to be met. Revised 10/16/2008 Page 9 of 9 EVA 13 17 a jeffrey halferty design 215 south monarch street Suite 202 Aspen,colorado.81611 4â€¢th 970.920.4535 :. ,+Dka@ 4150 4 970.925.6035 %/4 h. 1 9 2008 -76Â» The McCormick Residence Addition-Deck Description 1022 E. Hyman Avenue, Aspen, Co 9%44 For the McCormick residence, there will be a remodel on the existing structure, which includes two completely new decks on the second floor. There will be one built off the kitchen area, and the second new deck will be built offthe great room, right below the existing decks on the third floor. These are the only two decks being added. The existing three decks on the third floor include one deck off master bedroom, one from the master bathroom, and a deck offbedroom two. jeffrey halferty design 215 south monarch street Suite 202 Aspen,colorado.81611 970.920.4535 .7% (f if'4#?h jf 4 970.925.6035 4 Â£ 4,1 p U A 6044& Lifjp , 2008 The McCormick Residence Addition-FAR 4//444 1022 E. Hyman Avenue, City of Aspen Legal: Lot 2 Molny/Eubank Condominium, City of Aspen Condominiums 1 and 2, Eubank Condominiums Zone: Residentia]/Multi-Family (IUMF) Lot Area: 6276 S.F. (3152 S.F. ofthe area is beneath the high water line as determined by beach resource MGT. LLC.) Allowed Far Duplex: 2820 S.F. (2700 for 1 St 3000 S.F. + 30 S.F. Per 100 S.F. of Lot thereafter) Existing FAR: 2624.07 S.F. (1027.26 S.F. Main. 901.31 S.F. 2nd FLR, and 695.5 S.F. Basement) New FAR: 173 S.F. (13.6 S.F. GAR. Exceeding 250 S.F. and 159 S.F. 2nd FLR Total FAR: 2797.07 S.F. (Total FAR for complete complex) Exclusions: 250 S.F. Garage, 50 S.F. New deck and 214 S.F. existing deck Deck FAR: Allowable: 2797.07 S.F. x 15% = 419.56 S.F. Upper Floor 30" Above Grade: Existing Deck 1: 110.5 S.F. Existing Deck 2: 93.36 S.F. Existing Deck 3: 40.5 S.F. Lower Floor 30" Above Grade: Proposed Deck 4: 96.2 S.F. Proposed Deck 5: 78.75 S.F. Total= 419.31 419.56-419.31-=.25 S.F. UNDER 24Â« 1 g. 4 .441 I Jeffrey Halferty Design Responses To Stream Margin Review for Mccormick Residence .i it 1022 E. Hyman .4 09 - Aspen, Co 81611 0044-9. fok 2008 Â¥/7-Yof'~ Sec. 26.435.040. Stream margin review. A. Applicability. The provisions ofthe stream margin review shall apply to all development within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line ofthe Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams and to all development within the Flood Hazard Area, also known as the 100-year flood plain. B. Exemptions. The Community Development Director may exempt the following types of development within the stream margin review area: 1. Construction ofpedestrian or automobile bridges, public trails or structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, bank stabilization, provided plans and specifications are submitted to the City engineer denionstrating that the structure is engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows and the Community Development Director determines the proposed structure complies, to the extent practical, with the stream margin review standards. Not Applicable, because there will be no construction of pedestrian or automobile bridges, trails or, public trails or structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, or bank stabilization. 2. Construction of improvements essential for public health and safety which cannot be reasonably accommodated outside o f the "no development area" prescribed by this Section including, but not limited to, potable water systems, sanitary sewer, utilities and fire suppression systems provided the Community Development Director determines the development complies, to the extent practical, with the stream margin review standards. Not Applicable, because the building will not be in the no development area. 3. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development provided the following standards are met: The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area of the existing structure or increase the amount of building area exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty-five percent (25%). All stream margin exemptions are cumulative. Once a development reaches these totals, a stream margin review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is required; and The construction will not be adding any FAR, only to deck area, which will be under the 15% allowable. The development does not require the removal o f any tree for which a permit would be required pursuant to Chapter 13.20 ofthis Code. There will be no trees removed since only decks will be added, and they will be cantilevered. a. The development is located such that no portion of the expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will be any closer to the high water line than is the existing development; Will comply, since existing structure is already non-conforming, and will not be increasing its footprint. Only two decks will be added, and they will be cantilevered to expand only the same distance as the existing decks above. b. The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one has been designated through a prior review; and Will comply, since the building does not fall outside of an approved building envelope. c. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the amount of ground coverage of structures within the 100-year flood plan. Will comply, since there will be no increase to the amount of ground coverage or FAR. C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream margin ofthe Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and Will comply, since there will be no increase of base nood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. 2. The recommendations ofthe Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas ofhistoric public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries ofthe river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and Access will be granted to fishermen in the waterway, but not on property. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside o f a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F. 1; and Will comply since the two new decks will be cantilevered, and it will not impact or touch the riparian zone. The existing decks one floor above already expand over the same area. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside ofthe designated building envelope; and Not Applicable, because no hot tub or pool is being added to the property. 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and Not applicable, because we are not changing the water course. 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and Not applicable, because we are not changing the water course. 7. Copies are provided ofall necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100-year flood plain; and Survey is provided with information of where top of bank is located, approximate high water line, and edge of creek. 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation ofthe Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and The decks will be cantilevered, and existing riparian vegetation will not be disturbed. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and 43 =91 - 4 ...or'I,1.- / 11. U.%1 . 1:*t' .IT-7 :6'4~14'34 -â€¢lv /' 1, ~'Â¥_ - ~ E. 4 1.1 Ftgure *A" Existing house location is non-conforming, and construction not be increasing its existing footprint. Two new decks will be added below existing decks, expanding only the existing area, and will be cantilevered. 10. All exterior lighting is low and downeast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; and Will comply, since no exterior lighting will directed towards the river or located down he slope. 11. There has been accurate identification ofwetlands and riparian zones. Survey is provided with information of where top of bank is located, approximate high water line, and edge of creek. There will be no development past the top of bank, and will not be disturbing the wetlands or riparian zones or adding anything new. D. Appeal of Director's determination. An appeal of a determination in regards to a stream margin application or in regards to the top of slope determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be reviewed as a special review pursuant to Section E, below. In this case, the Community Development Director's finding shall be forwarded as a recommendation and a new application need not be filed. FEnTE-/- â€¢.-kiltrill.BiZi~I E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or an appeal o f the Stream Margin Map's top o f slope detennination, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs a, b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different determination in regards to the top of slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; and Will comply, survey is provided with in formation of where top of bank is located, approximate high water line, and edge of creek. 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding o f denial. F. Building permit submittal requirements. Prior to receiving a building permit for a property within the stream margin review area, the following must be submitted: 1. The applicant shall record a site improvement plat with topography prepared by a Colorado licensed professional surveyor showing the building envelope determined by the Community Development Director based on the Stream Margin Review Map located in the Community Development Department. Will comply, a site plan and survey is provided with information ofwhere top of bank is located, approximate high water line, and edge of creek. 2. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top o f slope and pertinent elevations above sea level. Will comply, survey is provided with information of where top of bank is located, approximate high water line, and edge of creek. More information is also on elevations and floor plans. 3. The building envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of certificates ofoccupancy. (Ord. No. 45-2001, Â§ 3; Ord. No. 52-2003, Â§ 13) We will comply with this issue. Editor's note-Ord. No. 45-2001, Â§ 2, repealed former Â§ 26.435.040, pertaining to Stream Margin Review and Ord. No. 45-2001, Â§ 3, enacted a new Â§ 26.435.040 as herein setout. Former Â§ 26.435.040 was derived from Ord. No. 47-1999, Â§ 3; Ord. No. 52-2003, Â§ 13. IMPROVEMENT SURVEY UPDATE UNITS 1 AND 2 El,~ BANK CONDOMINIUMS LOT 2 MOLNY/EUBANK SUBDIVISION, TO THE CITY OF ASPEN COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO GRAPHIC SCALE 10 ( IN FEET ) FOUND ALLEY REBAR 1 inch = 10 ft AND BLOCK 33 P.L. S. S75Â°09'11'E ILL-1/BENT --~ SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE - 27.89, 1 HEREBY CERTIFY *THAT THIS MAP ACCURATELY DEPICTS AN IMPROVEMENT SURVEY PLAT CONC PERFORMED UNDER MY SUPERVISION AND DIRECTION ON MAY 31, 2007, OF THE HEREON DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND. THE LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS OF ALL BUILDINGS, RET 9- - 55' WIT. WALL - CORNER IMPROVEMENTS, EASEMENTS RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN EVIDENCE OR KNOWN TO ME AND ENCROACHMENTS BY OR ON THESE PREMISES ARE ACCURATELY SHOWN. STEWART TITLE OF . ASPEN, INC. COMMITMENT ORDER NO. 451624 WAS USED IN PREPARING THIS SURVEY. *JOHN MCCORMICK & STEWART TITLE OF~,Ke*1181"74,2 lf) '9 42.5, ~~ |tifY - 1.-Â§1*06 2 44 16.11~'07~- | DATE: JUNE 04, 2007 3>6' ..:+14 878;...4.4 le/3 - SO'.Â¥ Â»1 BASEMENT ~ = .1 r ' ~ ~ LEVEL -. O â€¢01 1 A .t 1 fgkv c:J Ck %*12-,31944~21%2; 1 -- â‚¬41-%_ ...31.* 4 4 \ BRIAN *AIArâ€¢ETEIN 01 TWO STORY : 7.'OA .....0 PLS. 31944 k M ZI WITH BASEMENT 0-S 10' TRAIL , BOOK 286 ~ 13.1' 1022 Hâ„¢AN 1' 9 . ~ EASEMENT '44#11 lili lt,Il *04'0*' m DI e b 14 '44"IL LAÂ¥40 1'' ADDRESS APPARENT~ 00 c 4 1 Â» -0 \ PAGE 302 V 0- -1-0 ER1 1 Cm â€¢-V- 1 -8 0 30 0 ~ APPROX. CL 4 m Po O Fri 49 4 ROARING FORK CONC < m #-4 7.2, r?< lmA RIVER K , 1%* 79 1 1 0U FOUND / 5 . / . 91%+ * 0 //.l 24 s~. ~ ~ lili 29 2 U REBAR . ~ 2 1 LIt AND P.L.S.i 4 0 ILU 31.S' 1 R 6 4 4// Câ‚¬ 1 1 6 '< O LANDING / ' .g m -i44-- O L m 11T 00 60.00, *o ~.94' ~ -1. o ~ SEE BOOK 288 PAGE 144 92 FOR TRAIL EASEMENT \ 649 AMENDED BOOK 457 . = PAGE 542 NOTES: 65' WIT.0 - SURVEY ORIENTATION BASED ON MONUMENTS FOUND AND SHOWN HEREON. CORNER 0- . - EASEMENTS SHOWN ARE FROM CASE NO. 45162-C2 ISSUED BY STEWART ~ TITLE OF ASPEN, INC. EFFECTIVE DATE 7/31/06 AT 7: 30 A.M. ~ *gj~ ~ 1 - THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT A TITLE SEARCH BY THIS FIRM OR SURVEYOR. Â®- INDICATES FOUND REBAR & CAP SSC P.L.S. 2376 2110 14 O - INDICATES FOUND OR SET REBAR & PLASTIC CAP SSC P.L.S. 31944 , 0 -1' OVERHANG UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. /0 1 3.3' 2 STORAGE , EVE TO BUILDING BOUNDARY , 15.9' 0.2 41,06, 1 0.7' EVE TO PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 4 BOUNDARY .7 il'E 1' EVE TO BOUNDARY CONDOMINIUM UNITS 1 AND 2, EUBANK CONDOMINIUMS, ACCORDING TO THE CONDOMINIUM MAP THEREOF, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 7, 1988 IN PLAT BOOK 21 AT PAGE 25 AS RECEPTION NO. 303635, AND AS DEFINED AND DESCRIBED IN CONDOMINIUM DECLARATION RECORDED NOVEMBER 1, 1988 IN BOOK 577 AT PAGE 262 AS RECEPTION NO. 305496. SHED DETAIL COUNTY OF PITKIN JO. NO.: 99164-IMP STATE OF COLORADO DATE: 9/30/99 UPDATE: 8/4/06 DWG. BY: KJS CK: BAS NOnCE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE REV: 06/04/07EVE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY UNITS 1 AND 2 EUBANK WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVERED SUCH THE SEXTON SURVEY COMPANY DEFECL IN NO EVENT, MAY AN ACTION BASED UPON ANY 128 WEST 3RD ST} ET EUBANK CONDOMINIUM LOT 2 MOLNY/EUBANK SUBDIVISION 1 DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS TO THE CITY OF ASPEN o f RIFLE, COLORADO 81650 1 970-625-37110R 945-4700 IMPROVEMENL SURVEY COUNTY OF PITKIN FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. STATE OF COLORADO SS EASEMENT ACCE 3 5 tA $ .i. FLL 4 4 0 ~11> 1 03 /// f C 2 0 - / 0 00 1, 1- . 1- 1 T*-Â« BAN . \ 533) Cli C L--1 f 0 50> Â¢ - 1 x - AR A OF ELO G TOP OF ANK - MIN US D DO S AM / H O LO ATI SND 6 D A TO BA LE i G NT R/N. 1 0 j O 1 1 -3 / 0 2 - j ... 8Â»A AN 1 -7 - 6 TOP OF B 1 -5 93.0 1 - R t 2 0 7 %\81 81 - f / -7 -- .- 1 - - - C lili lil ~ 6 6 C3 0/ 1 - , 91 - 0 j , /t \ /1 = 1 1 1 4-G - LLC 1 \\ 90 MEMORANDUM TO: Plans were routed to those departments checked-off below: .....X... City Engineer ......... Community Development Engineer .......... Police Department .....X... Zoning Officer .......... Housing Director .....X... Parks Department ........... Aspen Fire Marshal ........... City Water ........... Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District ........... Building Department ........... Environmental Health ........... Electric Department ........... Holy Cross Electric City Attorney ........... ........... Streets Department ........... Historic Preservation Officer ......... City Parking Manager ........... Pitkin County Planning ......... Transportation FROM: Errin Evans, Current Planner Community Development Department 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Phone: 429-2745 Fax: 920-5439 RE: Single Family Dwelling (1022 E. Hyman Street) - Stream Margin Review - Parcel ID #2737-181-11-002 DATE: Tuesday, July 22,2008 COMMENTS: Please review the attached application for a Stream Margin Review to add a cantilevered deck. A DRC meeting will be held on August 6th, 2008. Please have your comments returned by August 15th, 2008. Please return your application if you do not want to hold onto it once the review is finished. DRC Meeting: August 6,2008 - Community Development Meeting Room (Third Floor) Date: August 6,2008 Project: Stream Margin Review - McCormick Residence, 1002 E. Hyman Ave. City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose of the DRC meeting. Review Standards: 26.435.040 (C) (4) The Proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and / or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated with in the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. o The City at this time is unable to determine if the project does not have an adverse environmental impact. A comprehensive drainage plan will need to be submitted which shows an 80% total suspended solids reduction of the site. Miscellaneous Construction Management - A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence o f construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. Storm Sewer System -A Stormwater System Development Fee shall be assessed against all properties at the time of development or redevelopment o f the property. The fee shall be assessed against the total impervious area o f the development, not simply the increased impervious area. Detailed plans are required prior to council - please see engineering department for specific details. Date: August 6 Stream Margin Review - McCormick Residence, 1022 E. Hyman Ave. City of Aspen Engineering Department DRC Comments These comments are not intended to be exclusive, but an initial response to the project packet submitted for purpose o f the DRC meeting. Review Standards: 26.435.040 (C) (4) The Proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and / or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated with in the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. The City at this time is unable to determine ifthe project does not have an adverse environmental impact. A comprehensive drainage plan will need to be submitted which shows an 80% total suspended solids reduction of the site. Construction Management - A construction management plan must be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. The plan must include a planned sequence of construction that minimizes construction impacts to the public. The plan shall describe mitigation for: parking, staging/encroachments, truck traffic, noise, dust, and erosion/sediment pollution. Additionally the construction footprint cannot extend into the stream margin review area (ie 15 feet beyond the top of slope and not within the floodplain). Parks Department DRC Comments and Requirements 1022 E Hyman 1. A plan should show how the applicant will provde appropriate protection of the stream margin. Erosion control, drainage and tree protection. Provide a design for the location, means of installation, materials and how it will function. 2. An approved tree permit is required for tree removals. An approved tree permit requires a proposed landscape plan identifying trees for removal, sizes, represented drip lines and a means and schedule for mitigation. Please contact the City Forester for more information 920-5120. The tree permit must be approved prior to an approved excavation permit. 3. A vegetation protection fence shall be erected at the drip line of each individual tree or groupings of trees remaining on site. A formal plan indicating the location of the tree protection will be required for the bldg permit set. No excavation, storage of materials, storage of construction backfill, storage of equipment, foot or vehicle traffic allowed within the drip line of any tree remaining on site. This fence must be inspected by the city forester or his/her designee (920-5120) before any construction activities are to commence. 4. No excavation within the top of slope set back is allowed. A detailed plan on how the applicant will build the proposed structures and not damage or disturb the 15' set back. Parks Department Comments 1. In addition to a orange mesh "construction fence" applicant will erect a solid plastic fence to assure that no materials will go in the river. All construction will stay within this fenced area. The area within the fence will be protected by plywood sheets. The fences will be attached by cord around the trees so as to not harm them. 2. No trees will be removed. 3. Any plywood that is at the base of the trees will be cut out to provide for adequate moisture at drip lines. There will be no materials or work done within that area.The orange mesh fence will run outside the drip line 4. There will be no excavation. RECEIVED Jeffrey Halferty Design Responses To Stream Margin Review for Mccormick Residence 1022 E. Hyman JUN 1 0 2008 Aspen, Co 81611 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Sec. 26.435.040. Stream margin review. A. Applicability. The provisions of the stream margin review shall apply to all development within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high water line ofthe Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams and to all development within the Flood Hazard Area, also known as the 100-year flood plain. B. Exemptions. The Community Development Director may exempt the following types of development within the stream margin review area: 1. Construction ofpedestrian or automobile bridges, public trails or structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, bank stabilization, provided plans and specifications are submitted to the City engineer demonstrating that the structure is engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows and the Community Development Director determines the proposed structure complies, to the extent practical, with the stream margin review standards. Not Applicable 2. Construction of improvements essential for public health and safety which cannot be reasonably accommodated outside ofthe "no development area" prescribed by this Section including, but not limited to, potable water systems, sanitary sewer, utilities and fire suppression systems provided the Community Development Director determines the development complies, to the extent practical, with the stream margin review standards. Not Applicable 3. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction o f an existing development provided the following standards are met: The development does not add more than ten percent (10%) to the floor area ofthe existing structure or increase the amount ofbuilding area exempt from floor area calculations by more than twenty-five percent (25%). All stream margin exemptions are cumulative. Once a development reaches these totals, a stream margin review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is required; and Not adding any FAR The development does not require the removal o f any tree for which a permit would be required pursuant to Chapter 13.20 ofthis Code. No trees will be removed a. The development is located such that no portion ofthe expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will be any closer to the high water line than is the existing development; Will Comply, existing structure is non-conforming, and will not be increasing its footprint b. The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope if one has been designated through a prior review; and Will Comply, building does not fall outside of an approved building envelope c. The expansion, remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the amount of ground coverage o f structures within the 100-year flood plan. Will Comply, no increase to the amount of ground coverage C. Stream margin review standards. No development shall be permitted within the stream margin ofthe Roaring Fork River unless the Community Development Director makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements set forth below: 1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a professional engineer registered to practice in the State which shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposing mitigation techniques on or off-site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the development; and Will Comply 2. The recommendations ofthe Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas ofhistoric public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries ofthe river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and Not Applicable 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside o f a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Subsection 26.435.040.F. 1; and Will Comply - New deck will be in conformity, proposed structure will be cantilevered, and will not impact riparian zone 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes ofthe river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside ofthe designated building envelope; and Not Applicable, no hot tub or pool is being added 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation ofa water course and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and Not Applicable 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and Not Applicable 7. Copies are provided ofall necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 100-year flood plain; and 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation ofthe Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and Existing riparian vegetation will not be disturbed 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method ofcalculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and . <lit,la.-10 -'lit,1,4 04 -/41=-1 Figure "A" Existing house location is non-conforming, and will not be increasing its footprint, more information on elevations 10. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; and Will Comply 11. There has been accurate identification ofwetlands and riparian zones. D. Appeal ofDirector's determination. An appeal of a determination in regards to a stream margin application or in regards to the top o f slope determination made by the Community Development Director, shall be reviewed as a special review pursuant to Section E, below. In this case, the Community Development Director's finding shall be forwarded as a recommendation and a new application need not be filed. E. Special review. An application requesting a variance from the stream margin review standards or an appeal ofthe Stream Margin Map's top of slope determination, shall be processed as a special review in accordance with common development review procedure set forth in Chapter 26.304. The special review shall be considered at a public hearing for which notice has been published, posted and mailed, pursuant to Subsection 26.304.060.E.3 Paragraphs 4 b and c. Review is by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A special review from the stream margin review determination may be approved, approved with conditions or denied based on conformance with the following review criteria: 1. An authorized survey from a Colorado professionally licensed surveyor shows a different determination in regards to the top o f slope and 100-year flood plain than the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed in the City Engineering Department; and Will Comply 2. The proposed development meets the stream margin review standard(s) upon which the Community Development Director had based the finding of denial. F. Building permit submittal requirements. Prior to receiving a building permit for a property within the stream margin review area, the following must be submitted: 1. The applicant shall record a site improvement plat with topography prepared by a Colorado licensed professional surveyor showing the building envelope determined by the Community Development Director based on the Stream Margin Review Map located in the Community Development Department. Will Comply, turned in site plan 2. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect or engineer shall be submitted showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top of slope and pertinent elevations above sea level. Will Comply, turned in survey 3. The building envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of certificates ofoccupancy. (Ord. No. 45-2001, Â§ 3; Ord. No. 52-2003, Â§ 13) Will Comply Editor's note-Ord. No. 45-2001, Â§ 2, repealed former Â§ 26.435.040, pertaining to Stream Margin Review and Ord. No. 45-2001, Â§ 3, enacted a new Â§ 26.435.040 as herein setout. Former Â§ 26.435.040 was derived from Ord. No. 47-1999, Â§ 3; Ord. No. 52-2003, Â§ 13. jeffrey halferty design 215 south monarch street Suite 202 Aspen,colorado.81611 RECEIVED 970.920.4535 970.925.6035 JUN 1 () 2008 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The McCormick Residence Addition-FAR 1022 E. Hyman Avenue. City o f Aspen Legal: Lot 2 Molny/Eubank Condominium, City o f Aspen Condominiums 1 and 2, Eubank Condominiums Zone: Residential/Multi-Family (IUMF) Lot Area: 6276 S.F. (3152 S.F. of the area is beneath the high water line as determined by beach resource MGT. LLC.) Allowed Far Duplex: 2820 S.F. (2700 for 1* 3000 S.F. + 30 S.F. Per 100 S.F. of Lot thereafter) Existing FAR: 2624.07 S.F. (1027.26 S.F. Main, 901.31 S.F. 2nd FLR, and 695.5 S.F. Basement) New FAR: 173 S.F. (13.6 S.F. GAR. Exceeding 250 S.F. and 159 S.F. 24 FLR Total FAR: 2797.07 S.F. Exclusions: 250 S.F. Garage, 50 S.F. New deck and 214 S.F. existing deck Deck FAR: Allowable: 2797.07 S.F. x 15% = 419.56 S.F. Upper Floor 30" Above Grade: Deck 1: 110.5 S.F. Deck 2: 93.36 S.F. Deck 3: 40.5 S.F. Lower Floor 30" Above Grade: Deck 4: 96.2 S.F. Deck 5: 78.75 S.F. Total= 419.31 419.56-419.31-=.25 S.F. UNDER FOUND ALLEY REBAR ANO BLOCK 33 UkNT - 2335'E SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 27,89, CONC 1.4 RET 55' WIT. WALL. CORNER m 0 42.253.% 10.W %17 DATE: JUNE 04, 2007 S 5.06'00 = 6.86 yf//7 4 0 T LEVEL 36 S TWO STORY . 9 8 41Â· 1022 HYMAN * WITH BASEMENT . - 10' TRAIL 98 EASEMENT ADDRESS APPARENT 44 3% BOOK 286 94 8 6~~ yQ APPROX. CL PAGE 302 CONC .%10 72. % ROARING FORK r RIVER 14.3 114 690 119 g FOUND 5' 4 LOT 2 \ REBAR -= ~t < 6267* SO. FT. ~ AND P.LS. : -oF ILU 34' 2 STORAGE 11, ~ ~, "w, 37.3, EVE"YO BUILDING . ET~ ~ BOUNDARY & 148' ~ ~6' O.~ LANDING J tO.~.3 ~ 2 EVE TO 0.1 4 BOUNDARY 0.2' S75'09'11â€¢E 10 60.00, 18.94, SEE BOOK 288 PAGE 144 Â§ EVE TO 24 BOUNDARY FOR TRAIL EASEMENT 21\14 AMENDED BOOK 457 PAGE 542 m _--263'49'08 65'0 CORNER 14' ESS EASEMENT B ACC S14*50' 'W jeffrey h o 1 1 V IN'i g n 215 S. Wonorch Ste 202 aspen.cO. 81811 970. 920. 4535 POUND 970 . 925 . 5035 Â£Uf 817<K U AJO MLS. nil B// -*--24 8Â».9 -=aug, Oak : mia En' TUA-ID Plrâ€¢DOD ar= 1 VAaL .. .K. l C.ZAR 2257*1 FBE; 3- 10].6 SHICAD[tr \ 4 ///1 1 \ /4/ 2 \ lilli. \ 76.11. 4. 03 P ./ ./1 r 1 1 i ti . 4 1 \ \ \ . S .5 4 . / , \ S# 44 4. -,- 0. E i / 62-29Â» 1 ; 1 \ m. FUL \ r EAS'llilq . 1*6409, / . / 4 4 1 \ j . 0,2.0, 4 & m 1 Obo \ -AR:Als %1Lpf \ APPRDZ. CL . -, ; /t-â€¢ " 1 te Rr/ER - - # 4/ 6 / 6267~ Sql n \ /1804 I li i \ 4 64'f --1.- :. ELY'al, cur k RiT r ANOUND FOUND REnAR \\ k AM] P.LS. PLU 4:.. TREE VMUME , LIA'DING 3,6.-09 9,2 1 eo. ooÂ· lili \ \SRI BDOK 288 PÂ®5 144 1 ~ \FOR TRAIL EASEMENT 1 \AMENDED 90* 447 M PAGE 64 1 i i l 1 1 -4. CORNER i 1 \ 1 1 11 Lk>-Ic / 1 7/, -1\ / 1.-EQEND 10,1. i %-1 MI~ECT 13 *p Ve#K De"'"P"ON Coteâ„¢uCTION PLAN FJ Fl.yh/COP P,EuTEer-/ON SIEET \21 ORANeiF Malt FENCE- El 22Â£49â‚¬ PLAs-776 ,Â«542& Mp,527-r UNE 50.60' og.27" jeffrey holl 'dr?tign 215 S. lonorch Ste 202 aspen,co. 81 311 970 . 920. 4535 79[J lo 970 . 925 .5035 =921 ABU'Â¢ BLGO!. U 1--11/BaW. --\*:,99. CO,E OUNCE NESH Fnt' . Cre' -MIA-IJ --YYVOJ RM V. /ALL mp oF BAHZ 1 A CLEAR PILSâ„¢1 99â€¢72 I - /\ 10]706 SHEE ADDED l i \\ . ji ... \ \ % 76.11' 4. 98 6, 4 - 5 .,4, I 4/r 1 \ \ t\ .3. i \ Sâ€¢ 6 \ / \ 0, FRAH \ uNCT~' ., - - f mu 0 t.1 \ PAGS .8 1 47Â· APP.Z. cz , N ADA=Nv FORE Rr,ER 4* .. 4 6 \ e t.-J .,3 .// A N ~ LOTJ I.A e w# Â· 62674 80. /7. 1\ 4 1 1 b / A 49,6 , 18011'V t.4/ 1 i 44 224 FOUND REBAR . r A,atic; , XYL---- AND P.LS. 221 'S.D. TRE! fMUNK 1 4 2.=AID 1 -I \\ 1 1 ! 275*09'11" r 1 1, 60.00' - \ \ \SEE BOOK 288 P*il 144 f ~ 21 1 \FOR 7-RAHIL EASEMENT I \AMENDED 3097 487 p," 6,12 ill li -r- 1 4--6--4 .5UfiR \\ 1 1 LEQEND PROICT 1-3 *P o,emr,e DESCRPT/CN CONSâ„¢UCTION FLAN Fl.n*oP Pm>Ter-1 04 SNEET illimil4i ORA/Â¥67 # Ma# Fe/VAE 52=r....... El czEÂ« poe-,7e F~New EI /22/Â£~71 Z/AE 50.50. EDGERD. 70.53' S0895'57'L APPROX. HIGH APPROX HIGH jeffrey WATER LINE WATER LINE halferty design 215 S Monorch Ste 202 0/pe n,c 0.81511 970.920.4535 --lop Of BANK --TOP Of BANK 970.925.5035 FAX EXISTING DEC< DOSyNG DECK 1 110.5 S.F. .... 10.20.08 EXISTING DECK EXISNNG ROOF- DETING DECK 2 ExaSTING ROOF- 93.35 S.F DEC< or -><01Â«EN_F X Â»~ 111]XE .1 2- 4 2_ MASTER EA1+1 .? 0 Q r=l\~F: 6 Q ~~ -Ii.- 57 e 10 0 17-5- ..l GENERAL CONTRACTOR 1 14 , ' - MASTER = , b i %64 Flfee ./6 1 - 6 -- - h - U * OV BATH 2 - --LI \ 6 6 - k - / 1 / 1-1 1 1 M * ~4 ' . ~ STALICAIRAL ENGINEER / 4 ., NEW :m.ER AEO~â‚¬ ~ ~ ~ ~C BE*B~ONE ~ NEÂ¥/ E~ N<~~f L ~ / CREATNG TWO ONE ~ TMS SPACE 6 --21-1 I ' W .4 - 43 Lazi BEOROO. % 1 T 14'-2~ -6 â€¢CCORMICK RESIDENCEE '2.-0- J ~2- imp'f 1022 E. HYMAN -tll-1 1 br 9 4 ASPEN, COLORADO 81511 Ul PR[JECT O 134[- 4 SCALE: 1/8-=1'-O- 4 'rp. ---U . DIX,MOK UPPER FLOOR - L.. 17â‚¬ 9 5' 8'-0' 30'-5- 30'-5. Der Al.1 MCORMICK REMODEL Â®- â€¢CORMICK REâ€¢ODEL EXISTING CONDITIONS 1*=19#5 PROPOSED PLANS "C~ McCormick Residence Photos . . - 1 0 V.,..0 . 751 ; '' 11 1 ~n~F#~ q'14 IM . 3 ~-Â·i- .... 1 i 16'. i.,6 ' ' :'4:,5/ i.' reff' . . - 2:4/0: 4 -1,66 22 474< r - dipl 4 4 p it:.4-9 7 ,;1 Â· 4*9.....ag.. 4%0 ...u.'./4/7.72-,FI ~~4' -Â· # I Â· '~AUâ‚¬mÂ¢1.16Â£ilmwiN-Â·2; Â·fi - ~hw -- D ,Ii-d i 1 U 1/84\ 1 .././#'rill/$*il 1/Ii////HIMET'./5/'ll Illillillitfglaillimaill' 1/"milizill#./%.Trf:422'lli i ..........IMME)'Ill/"843&/Ill///~'~-rA~ Ilill'IIILI'milli//811//6Â£7 gl../lum:iv --L â€¢- i - --1-= 4Â· Ii.HILI'lill"-P:/f- 4="'"--- - Â»W:'. ='*4#F-pz-FA~'-re*&=@rv- WIA *r- p -1/5/*I./Fl .....li .1 -I-jil - > - m. Ill"/Ir L=~ 44.01 - I y i#:' Â£ : I I :Ii.-6/.i.':':9&Â¢4 . ' . f 'v 4 -,/1 -~/-/1.1...4 /~01 4/5/"., - .04~ I......./ 4-k YONÂ·~ 2 4,~ Â©Â·Cub~~' ~ 110 '4*45Â·EXÂ¥* r . .. I I .1, '10 I I. 0 I < , *: ~aic :,Oby ' *t./.!,~t:,Â·9'94,0Â·* Â·: Â·' L . - . t 1, e 44 1 f 4 0 ~ i k' 3, , El *4 '; ~ ~4 i ' 4*: /// 04 .t . ''7 - Â© E jâ‚¬ . 7-*'cy '4*43&. b,9 4:' '~ ' .8 'fi~ .iÂ» V '2,424Â¢=l C f.â‚¬.t Ff * 9.. 't 4('1~ Sitiki/l-/,o. 0 424% . jeffrey halferty design 215 south monarch street Suite 202 Aspen,colorado.81611 970.920.4535 970.925.6035 The McCormick Residence FAR 1022 E. Hyman Avenue, City of Aspen Legal: Lot 2 Molny/Eubank Condominium, City o f Aspen Condominiums 1 and 2, Eubank Condominiums Zone: Residential/Multi-Family (IUMID Lot Area: 6276 S.F. (3152 S.F. ofthe area is beneath the high water line as determined by beach resource MGT. LLC.) Allowed Far Duplex: 2820 S.F. (2700 for 1St 3000 S.F. + 30 S.F. Per 100 S.F. of Lot thereafter) Existing FAR: 2624.07 S.F. (1027.26 S.F. Main, 901.31 S.F. 2nd FLR, and 695.5 S.F. Basement) New FAR: 173 S.F. (13.6 S.F. GAR. Exceeding 250 S.F. and 159 S.F. 2nd FLR Total FAR: 2797.07 S.F. (Total FAR for complete complex) Exclusions: 250 S.F. Garage, 50 S.F. New deck and 214 S.F. existing deck Deck FAR: Allowable: 2820 S.F. x 15% = 423 S.F. Upper Floor 30" Above Grade: Existing Deck 1: 110.5 S.F. Existing Deck 2: 93.36 S.F. Existing Deck 3: 40.5 S.F. I I Total Existing: 244.36 S.F. Lower Floor 30" Above Grade: Proposed Deck 4: 96.2 S.F. Proposed Deck 5: 81.03 S.F. Total Proposed= 177.23 S. F. 423 (Allowed) - 421.59 (Exiting and Proposed) = 1.41 UNDER ATTACHMENT 2-LAND USE APPLICATION PROJECT: Name: 1 o k N ,/YV\. c. C. A / 14\ c )- Location: \ 0-- 11 E /--1 \,1,1 (Luv-- fro,RE.1 0Â£44 U A-,9 1 (Indicate street address, lot & block nulber, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID # (REQUIRED) 17 '.6 -7 1 2 /10001 APPLICANT: Name: ko k w /~hA C (0 4 004 +K Address: R o .11-n/ j O 6 -7 IL ~Â¢j(4>)t U Phone #: 9 7 0 1 9 2 420Â£/-7 ,+ A (~ AÂ«i)441.(0Â»341Â£.Co'Â¥9\ REPRESENTATIVE: troloc-.co /4,3Wcp~9 Name: :-- Address: Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): GMQS Exemption El Conceptual PUD U Temporary Use GMQS Allotment U Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) U Text/Map Amendment Special Review U Subdivision U Conceptual SPA ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream U Subdivision Exemption (includes U Final SPA (& SPA Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Amendment) Mountain View Plane U Commercial Design Review U Lot Split U Small Lodge Conversion/ Expansion U Residential Design Variance E] Lot Line Adjustment U Other: U Conditional Use EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) /7 C : u L.41- fr J , 1 0./1x t.-u 1 -/i r t.*,M riv& ~* l 42Â£-14Â·1,4/M~L /~ *-f ~/~212.-.~I- O Â» -d~ / 3-21i) Al/27 8-2 1 ,-21~-~~ , 'll F 5 1Â¥1 A< itr/f wi / Â£ U Pi ,# R W. -Le I. PROPOSAL: (description ot proposffiLidings, uses, moditications, etc.) 6/ p ~ t H_ul-- f~ 1~ Ch, ll lr .4 u d Ha~4pitattached the following? FEES DUE: $ EFLpfre-Application Conference Summary GrAttachment # 1, Signed Fee Agreement U Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form U Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards L] 3-D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3-D model. Your pre-application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3-D model. 0001 ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: 1014 +1, i. AX#Z,u Applicant: 21Â· k D 4711 c (, / Au ./1 Location: Zone District: 1.p'M F Lot Size: le 3-3 14 Lot Area: 3 /1 4 (for the purposds 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: Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: / Proposed: / Number of bedrooms: Existing: 3 Proposed: IL Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: 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: Distance Between Existing Required: Proposed: Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: 8 ecu._ Variations requested: ATTACHMENT 3 DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM Project: ,/7)07./ /, ./ ,--Â»Â·i, 6, k 54)2-.326-5 Applicant: ) h k., t'911, Â£ C U .Â·- /k. ... 4 Location: 2 C Z j.. 3 - F 4--k(11&728.- Zone District: R /-/4 e Lot Size: 1 4 .' } C 4 Lot Area: 3 i 1 4 ( for the purposds 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: Proposed: Number of residential units: Existing: / Proposed: / 1 Number o f bedrooms: Existing: 1 Proposed: Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): DIMENSIONS: Floor Area: Existing: ~4 Allowable: Proposed: Principal bldg. height: Existing: N. A Allowable: Proposed: Access. bldg. height: Existing: NA Allowable: Proposed. On-Site parking: Existing: NA- Required: Proposed: % Site coverage: Existing: 6(41 Required: Proposed: vo open Space: Existing: N A Required: Proposed: Front Setback: Existing: 4 4 Required: Proposed: Rear Setback: Existing: ~0 ,Â·4 Required: Proposed: Combined F/R: Existing: ~,1,4 Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: Nt& Required: Proposed: Side Setback: Existing: *94 Required. Proposed: Combined Sides: Existing: /874 Required: Proposed: Distance Between Existing ~)06 Required: Proposed: Buildings Existing non-conformities or encroachments: '2V wki/EL----- Variations requested: 09(-2,#A tah( 1 \(l-\ 06,40 \Al CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Pavment of Citv of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and 2> d . N grvt c L c / nlt- Â£ c ) L (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for TAL C.- Co / '1*.c L SE<f â‚¬. A- ,W-, i/14<.LAK~- 1- t./LU-uJ (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ /7/ 62 which is for 0 hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $235.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until atl costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT rÂ«- By: By: Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: I 0 - 11 -O -7 Billing Address and Telephone Number: i Q 23*94 j t.; 4, 7 /1.--1 9, 2 41%' C LI :F4/ j- THE CrrY OF AspEN ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2007 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES (Hourly Rate: 235.00) CATEGORY HOURS DEPOSIT FLAT FEE Land Use (Other than BOA and HPC) Major 12 2,820.00 Minor 6 1,410.00 Staff Approvals 3 705.00 Flat Fee 560.00 Board of Adiustment 265.00 Historic Preservation Fees Historic Designation 0.00 Exempt HPC 0.00 Certificate ofNo Negative Effect 235.00 Minor Development 3 705,00 Significant, adding <1000 sq. ft. 6 1,410.00 Significant, adding >1000 sq. ft. 12 2,820,00 Demolition (40% of structure or more) 12 2,820.00 Relocation (Off-site) 12 2,820.00 Insubstantial Amendment 0.00 Substantial Amendment 3 705.00 ' Other Fees Development Order Recordation Fee 40.00 Land Use Code Interpretation 50.00 Appeal of Board or Administrative Decisions* 3 705.00 (*If applicant's appeal is approved, Land Use Fees will be refunded) Referral Fees Environmental Health Major 391.00 Housing Major 391.00 Minor 204.00 City Engineer Major 391.00 Minor 204.00 Parks Major 391.00 Minor 204.00 CITY OF ASPEN PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Jennifer Phelan, 429-2759 DATE: 7/27/07 PROJECT: 1022 E. Hyman Ave. REPRESENTATIVE: Jeffrey Halferty, Halferty Design TYPE OF APPLICATION: Stream Margin Review DESCRIPTION: The prospective Applicant would like to redevelop and expand a second story deck. The subject property and building are adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and a tributary of it. As proposed, the expanded deck will be closer to the high water line than the existing development (a threshold standard for allowing the proposal to be exempt from Stream Margin Review, Section 26.435.040 B.3.c.), therefore Stream Margin Review is required. Land Use Code Section(s) 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.435.040 Stream Margin Review 26.710.090 Residential Multi-Family (IUMF) Review by: - Staff for complete application - Referral agencies for technical considerations - Planning and Zoning Commission (final review body for Stream Margin Review) Public Hearing: Yes at P& Z Planning Fees: $1,410 Deposit for 6 hours of stafftime (additional staff time required is billed at $235 per hour) Referral Fees: Engineering ($204), Parks ($204) Total Deposit: $1,818.00 Total Number of Application Copies: Stream Margin Review: 10 Copies Tqapply, submit the following information: 00=~~, Total Deposit for review of application. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant stating the name, address, and telephone number ofthe representative authorized to act on behalf ofthe applicant. ~<1 Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting 1,1 of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, liens, easements, contracts and agreements affecting the parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. ~0-3< Completed Land Use Application. -1Â¥.- Signed fee agreement. *V er PIe-application Conference Summary. (~~~ An 8 1/2" x ll" vicinity map locating the subject parcels within the City ofAspen. proofof ownership. Existing and proposed site plan and landscaping plan (ifnew planting is proposed or existing vegetation . is to be removed). .~)Â©Existing and proposed elevation drawings that include proposed dimensional requirements. 03 >Â©A site improvement survey that includes all existing natural and man-made site features. â€¢Â£0,542. A written description ofthe proposal and a written explanation ofhow the proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. â€¢â€ž13. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements. ~~ 14. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing. The GIS department can provide this ~ list on mailing labels for a small fee. 920.5453 15. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only J on either ofthe following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD)-preferred, Zip Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Disclaimer: The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. 903 30 -3 9(' 7 4 - 1//Fg /4 . - I-I/'IaL i I .4, - --I 9 " r 14//'w ;43*9Â· . 12 4 9 Â·24 14.......b, t- ----------- V ..N. 11'. 1 4 -- ..1 -w--w*-- - 9 ..fi 37 4 -4.- 4 // 4 -- ... ... LFi'61., 1...*- lip Â·el 721'"I'll//IL 0 0/ . Â® '.1 '~5' .Ill./.%91. iri- Gif - I - ...+0 1- ---~2 - ..~ ~V'. 4; Z t W . :4 7 ....4 493 9 . - ...2 . 7 - - . 1. t.. . -/./.- ,Â« 1 - ..P-- - i - I 1.- %Â¥ Ity *- 0 Â· 4 -2.41; 1 *. ..... . . - ~ 10- . 7 - - h --2 4 -44=- 4 1,=& . 0.#... r- Â· - - - ....4 4 - 1 I D 2* 2 1 . 'A~ 41, Millillip - - I. M:- 5% - liT- 1.-t'j#"t. f 0.1 7 4 7 + 1Â» I VIA.. - . P .'ll' .: â€¢ '. ' . iiI - 2Er S- b -i- 4 6 *4Â¢ 11 i . 09, - t - - Ii= .////Zaw- 7 47 * g J 4 ... ...7. hah. 7 / 2286'W- 4 0 1.M" 1..L-21 -- Al ... I f Z 'r. 4 / -s-2 â€¢ Â·U'/9.626 4, .*44 Â¢ .1 1 - : 1.1 ".-4.2 ./V . .- t.2,97%% 1.-- .A . -'ll.. ./.:- . I.% 2Â¥:14. I - T. Ilia *A * f. J --4.".la,8 - C.â€ž.0 . , }40 - - - -- -- 1 '-~~ 9. ,. b.,0- 4 - 1 1 ; 1 : if ~ 9=='il Ve - I- I. . 2 ti- , 1 6 I 1 L - 1. 'Â· .67' c.*~~ . Tr . 1 1 . I . In-&444 - 4 31* F , . . .-I- . '7 1 4 --- - W~ 1.i'*18111 r,4.11:h.3 mil Â· % , .i#/1/~1- r . A- * /4 ,/ -/4 pc f 1. ..:f:? 7 - 6 g. 4 A' 42912 - 7 , i'*-2 - 2.2 *- . ...9 - '.. -Â¥ 44 9 -. 4...4.Ill Fl. 41 - 4 . 4 L â‚¬*. 1. 2 .A,- A .: . 4/* : -' 1-1/... Arb - . .31, 6=~39 .- i I I. . r 9* 1 -44 4, 1 2. D,,.. . - , -Ilt ' r.;r..*fstt ~-3 ~4,1-4 ," ..,1.W . 27 ..:.F./.P / 11..~ 7â€¢ L r/ 0 #rad : '4 *41 4 A . 'p elf , .1-'~ -: 4 AE.*'-:at ' A'TKN-lat~'r =117/B / 12-*- 1 .'.1,1 71, V *2 'e . -- , 91. ,,re~ Â·Â·, P" '-/~~~~~~~ ,- 1 I , ..1. f -!F . 4,1r ..1 jeffrey halferty design 215 south monarch street Suite 202 Aspen,colorado.81611 970.920.4535 RECEIVED 970.925.6035 JUN 1 0 2008 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: City ofAspen, Community Development Department From: Jeffrey Halferty Date: 6/10/2008 Subject: McCormick Residence, 1022 E. Hyman, Aspen, Co 81611 Number: 0073.2007.ASLU Attn: Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director Responses to stream margin review Thank you, Jeffrey Halferty Design jeffrey halferty design 215 S Monarch St. suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-4535 (970) 925-6035 Fax DATE: 12 /03 /07 Community Development of Aspen Attn: Jennifer Phelan RE: McCormick residence Stream margin review scope 1022 E. Hyman ave Aspen, Colorado, 81611 We need to go through the stream margin review because we are proposing to relocate an existing deck. We are proposing to add an additional deck at this home location. We are proposing a structural system that would cantilever off of the existing home structure therefore would not create any further impact to the riparian area of the roaring fork river. We will need no structural columns to impact the riparian area. Thank you, 1 j Yours truly, Jeffrey J ,--6 4Â®tay/\, Owner &04(n John McCormick 1022 E Hyman Ave R/V 12/w P.O. Box 1067 Aspen Co 81612. 970 920 4740 H 970 948 8047 C Alternative Representative Jeffery Halferty 215 S Monarch St #202 Aspen CO 81611 970 920 4535 W 9709484537 John McCormick To via e Fax Page 2 of 11 2007-10-29 1830:16 (GMT) 18667280291 From- Stewart Title ofAspen ALTA Conimitnient <6/17/06) ALTA Commitment Form COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE Issued by rstewart , title guaranty company Stewart Title Guaranty Company, a Texas Corporation ("Company"), for a valuable consideration, commits to issue its policy or policies of title insurance, as identified in Schedule A, in favor of the Proposed Insured named in Schedule A, as owner or mortgagee of the estate or interest in the land described or referred to in Schedule A, upon payment of the premiums and charges and compliance with the Requirements; all subject to the provisions of Schedules A and B and to the Conditions of this Commitment. This Commitment shall be effective only when the identity of the Proposed Insured and the amount of the policy or policies committed for have been inserted in Schedule A by the Company. All liability and obligation under this Commitment shall cease and terminate six months after the Effective Date or when the policy or policies committed for shall issue, whichever first occurs, provided that the failure to issue the policy or policies is not the fault of the Company. The Company will provide a sample of the policy form upon request. This commitment shall not be valid or binding until countersigned by a validating officer or authorized signatory. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused its corporate name and seal to be hereunto affixed by its duly authorized officers on the date shown in Schedule A. Counter,signed: 0 3 /1/1 t -stewed Afthorized Countersig:wuure Â·title guaranty company -/ . ~1.7.16*i eÂ»- 6 Senior Chairman of the Board Stewart Title of Colorado Inc. - Aspen 6.14 ,A 1644 Division *.Â·%444Â·'49* 620 Bast Hopkins Avenue *Â·$::$.8,0-/e .'Â·-n~,=i. 4~ ~Chairman of the 8oard Aspen. Colorado 81611 t.:,1 1.,24Â£ 4Â£1"1.e, BL 4/*23#524 4 Phone Number: (970) 925-3577 44&22:,'. fUL__ President ALTA Coinmitmenl (6/17/4)6) ir To via eFax Page 3 of 11 2007-10-29 1830 16(GMT) 18667280291 From Stewart Title of Aspen CONDITIONS 1. The term mortgage, when u sed herein, shall include deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument. 2. If the proposed Insured has or acquired actual knowledge of any defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter affecting the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment other than those shown in Schedule B hereof, and shall fail to disclose such knowledge to the Company in writing, the Company shall be relieved from liability for any loss or damage resulting from any act of reliance hereon to the extent the Company is prejudiced by failure to so disclose such knowledge. If the proposed Insured shall disclose such knowledge to the Company, or if the Company otherwise acquires actual knowledge of any such defect, lien, encumbrance, adverse claim or other matter, the Company at its option may amend Schedule B of this Commitment accordingly, but such amendment shall not relieve the Company from liability previously incurred pursuant to paragraph 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations. 3. Liability of the Company under this Commitment shall be only to the named proposed Insured and such parties included under the definition of Insured in the form of policy or policies committed for and only for actual loss incurred in reliance hereon in undertaking in good faith (a) to comply with the requirements hereof, or (b) to eliminate exceptions shown in Schedule B, or (c) to acquire or create the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment. In no event shall such liability exceed the amount stated in Schedule A for the policy or policies committed for and such liability is subject to the insuring provisions and Conditions and Stipulations and the Exclusions from Coverage of the form of policy or policies committed for in favor of the proposed Insured which are hereby incorporated by reference and are made a part of this Commitment except as expressly modified herein. 4. This Commitment is a contract to issue one or more title insurance policies and is not an abstract of title or a report of the condition of title. Any action or actions or rights of action that tile proposed Insured may have or may bring against the Company arising Out of the status of the title to the estate or interest or the status of the mortgage thereon covered by this Commitment must be based on and are subject to the provisions of this Commitment. 5. The policy to be issued contains an arbitration clause. At! arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is $2,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. You may review a copy of the arbitration rules at< h.ttp://www.atta.org/>. rstewart , title guaranty company All notices required lo be given Lhe Company and any slatement in writing required to be furnished tile Company shall be addressed to il al P.O. Box 2029. Houston. Texas 77252. To via eFax Page 4 of 11 2007-10-29 18 30.16 (GMT) 18667280291 From Stewart Title of Aspen COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE A 1. Effective Date: October 17,2007 at 8:00 a.m. Order No.: 46649 2. Policy or Policies To Be Issued: Amount of Insurance (a) A.L.T.A. Owner's (Stand aid) $ TBD Proposed Insured: To Be Determined (b) A.L.T.A. Loan 3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in this Commitment and covered herein is: Fee Simple 4. Title to the Fee Simple estate or interest in said land is at the effective date hereof vested in: John McCormick 5. The land referred to in this Commitment is described as follows: Unit 2, EUBANK CONDOMINIUMS, according to the Condominium Map thereof recorded September 7, 1988 in Plat Book 21 at Page 25 as Reception No. 303635, and as defined and described in the Condominium Declaration recorded November I, 1988 in Book 577 at Page 262 as Reception No. 305496. County of Pitkin, State of Colorado Purported Address: STATEMENT OF CHARGES 1022 E Hy.man Avenue 2 These charges are due and payable Aspen, Colorado 81611 before a Policy can be issued: To Be Detennined Order Na: 46649 -ste,A/art ALTA Commitment (6/17/06) - Schedule A Paige l (,i' 1 L-- title guaranty company To via e Fax Page 5 of 11 2007-10-29 18:30:16(GMT) 18667280291 From- Stewart Title of Aspen COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B - Section 1 REQUIREMENTS Order Number: 46649 The following are the requirements to be complied with: 1. Payment to or for the account of the grantor(5) or mortgagor(s) of the full consideration for the estate or interest to be insured. 2. Proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be insured must be executed and duly filed for record. 3. Release of Deed of Trust Dated: October 2,2003, Executed by: John McCormick, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness in the amount of: $1,345,000.00. in favor of: Washington Mutual Bank, FA., Recorded: October 7,2003 as Reception No.: 489439. 4. Release of Deed of Trust Dated: November 24,2003, Executed by: J ohn McCormick, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness in the amount of: $200,000.00, in favor of: GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. Recorded: December 1, 2003 as Reception No.: 491895. 5. Certificate from the management group evidencing the fact that all Condominium expenses have been paid pursuant to the Condominium Declaration. 6. Evidence of compliance with the terms of the provision of the Condominium Declaration pursuant to Paragraph No. 24C, relating to the first right of refusal. 7. Evidence satisfactory to Stewart Title Guaranty Company, furnished by the Office of the Director of Finance. City of Aspen, that the following taxes have been paid, or that conveyance is exempt from said taxes: (1) The "Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 20 (Series of 1979) and (2) The "Housing Real Estate Transfer Tax" pursuant to Ordinance No. 13 (Series of 1990). 8. Deed from vested owner, vesting fee simple title in purchaser(s). Order Nic 46649 - stewart ALTA Commitmenah/17/06) - Schedule B 1 Page 1 of 2 -title guaranty company To via eFax Page 6 of 11 2007-10-29 18 30.16 (GMT) 18667280291 From Stewart Title of Aspen 9. Indemnity and Affidavit as to Debts, Lens and Leases, duly executed by the seller and buyer and approved by Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. Order No.: 46649 ALTA Coninlitment (6/17/06) - Schedule B 1 -stewart Page 2 of 2 -title guaranty company To via eFax Page 7 of 11 2007-10-29 18'30:16 (GMT) 18667280291 From: Stewart Title of Aspen COMMITMENT FOR TITLE INSURANCE SCHEDULE B - Section 2 EXCEPTIONS Order Number: 46649 The policy or policies to be insured will contain exceptions to the following unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of the Company: 1. Rights or claims of parties in possession, not shown by the public records. 2. Easements, or claims of easements, not shown by the public records. 3. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the public records. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for services, labor or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, if any, created, first appearing the public records or attaching subsequent to the effective date hereof, but prior to the date the proposed insured acquires of record for value the estate or interest or mortgage thereon covered by this commitment. 6. Unpatented mining claims, reservations or exceptions in patents, or in acts authorizing the issuance thereof. 7. Water rights, claims or title to water. 8. Any and all unpaid taxes and assessments and any unredeemed tax sales. The effect of inclusions in any general or specific water conservancy, fire protection, soil conservation or other district or inclusion in any water service or street improvement area. 9. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United S tates Patent recorded October 21,1955 in Book 180 at Page 454. 10. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United S tales Patent of record and any vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead tin, copper or other valuable deposit claimed or known to exist on March 23 1885, as reserved by Patent recorded June 17, 1949 in Book 175 at Page 246. 11. Conditions as set forth in Deed recorded April 11, 1974 in Book 286 at Page 193 which state Order No.: 46649 r-stewart ALTA Cammitment (6/17/06) - Schedule B 2 Pagel of 2 L---Utle guaranty company To via eFax Page 8 of 11 2007-10-29 18:30:16 (GMT) 18667280291 From Stewart Title of Aspen substantially as follows: Upkeep, maintenance and snow removal shall be the joint and mutual responsibility of the parties hereto, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns. Such easement shall be accessible and open at all times. (Affects said easement across Lot Q). 12. Terms, conditions and obligations regarding maintenance and snow removal as set forth in Deed recorded April 17, 1974 in Book 286 at Page 195 as Reception No. 166797. 13. 10 foot Trail Easement granted to the City of Aspen by instrument recorded June 10, 1974 in Book 288 at Page 144 as Reception No. 168040, and Amended Grant of Trail Easement recorded December 19,1983 in Book 457 at Page 542 as Reception No. 255798. 14. Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in Molny-Eubank Subdivision Exemption Agreement with the City of Aspen, recorded February 23,1981 in Book 404 at Page 682 as Reception No. 231044. 15. Easements and restrictions as shown on the Condominium Map for the Eubank Condominiums recorded September 7, 1988 in Plat Book 21 at Page 25 as Reception No. 303635, and on the Plat for the Molny-Eubank Subdivision recorded February 23, 1981 in Plat Book 11 at Page 13 as Reception No. 231045. 16. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions as set forth in the Condominium Declaration for the Eubank Condominiums recorded November 1, 1988 in Book 577 at Page 262 as Reception No. 305496. 17. Terms, conditions, obligations and restrictions as set forth in Resolution No. 02 Series of 2001 of the Board of Adjustment of the City o f Aspen, granting a variance to John McCormick recorded November 19, 2001 as Reception No. 460983. NOTE: Colorado Division of Insurance Regulations 3-5-1, Paragraph C of Article VII requires that "Every title entity shall be responsible for all matters which appear of record prior to the time of recording whenever the title entity conducts the closing and is responsible for recording or filing of legal documents resulting from the transaction which was closed." Provided that Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc. conducts the closing of the insured transaction and is responsible for recording the legal documents from the transaction, exception number 5 will not appear on the Owner's Title Policy and the Lender's Policy when issued. NOTE: Policies issued hereunder will be subject to the terms, conditions, and exclusions set forth in the ALTA 2006 Policy form. Copies of the 2006 form Policy Jacket, setting forth said terms, conditions and exclu sions, will be made available upon request. Order No.: 46649 rstewart ALTA Ccymmitment (6/17/06) - Schedule B 2 Page 2 42 L--btle guaranty company ........ S iÂ¥.. fIAâ€¢~ jeffrey halferty RECEIVED desig APPROX. HISH APPROX. H]6H 215 S. Monorch Ste 202 MATER LINE WATER LINE JUN 2 3 2008 aspen,c 0.816 CITY OF ASPEN 970.920.4535 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 970.925.6035 FAX - TOP OF BANK --TOP OF BANK EXISTINS DECK EXISTIN6 DECK I Issue: 11.20.06 1. 4.24.08 EXISTINe DECK. EXISTINS ROOF EXISTINS DECK 2 EXISTINS ROOF PECK I I \ I I . r . - % Â· 4 4 - - :0: 2 = 9 --- 12 0 \--\ 0- MASTER DATH I ~ 9 b 0 E A 12'-6. 12 -4 -1 0 11. Q ~ MASTER BEDROOM - -9 le 1 _ - 00>I - /41 i 0 1 & 9 9 4 In <<-v 1 in in ~ eENERAL CONTRACTOR BATH 2 Modehouse Augel 10 901 L AABC c2 m ~ m Aspen,Colorado.Blel I 7 410.420.0039 9 - T '~ NEA Â·DRMER ABOV~f ~ ~~0~~~0'" Supervisor: Michael Augal - Lll 6 ~ -7 DED.eme ONE VI-[ ' STRUCTURAL ENGINEER . /31 1 1 NE01 ESRESS MINIPORi~ i ~ INhite Horse Consultants f -- CREATING TINS ~ * NEM $.AY MINDOW M- 101-11. 498 Mesa Verda Drive BEDROOMS OUT OF J - 1 - / Carbondale,Colorado.8162: ONE IN THIS SPACE ~ - 6 21-0,1 pr 470.704.190-1 -leih â‚¬0 1 I . - ~ Contact: Larry Doble 1-lei B. f| i.4.'-:2~" r 10 2'-O" W ' 0 = in 9 EXISTINe 9 w DECK s A BEDROOM TRO - f 0 32# 4 ~1 - a.. 1~ A' - Lt 5 12'-6" 5' 4' 6'-O" e'-6" 22 12'-6" b' ALLSAIER RESIDENCE ./ .7// / . / ' .1 30'-6" BO'-6" 0045 FORGE ROAD ASPEN, COLORADO 1 1 1 PROJECT MOORMICK REMOPEL MOORMICK REMODEL EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED PLANS SCALE: 1/4"=GO" DESCRIPTION UPPER FLOOR /h 1/ NORTH SHEET A'01 Â® 2006 THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF J.H. DESIGN P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WriHOUT THE PRIOR WRITrEN PERMISSION OF JH DESIGN . . . . . 0 . . ........ Roor R., jeffrey halferty desig 215 S. Monarch Ste 202 APPROX. HISH 1 MATER LINE aspen,c 0.816 970.920.4535 APPROX. HISH , 970,925.6035 FAX WATER LINE --TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK -- -00 1 Issue: DECK 4 - PROPOSED DECK 11.20.06 4 l 4.24.08 li 6 4 _ PROPOSED DECK - DECK 5 - *ATINe AREA KITCHEN 15'-7" U 7 - , OPEN UP TO .Â£- ENLARGE KITCHEN - - 1 1 -1 P 4 D.4 - 4 12'-11" 77 9- KITCHEN - - in 1' f -0 9 1- 4,1 ~, NEF CLEARSTORY BEDROOM 9 MINDOWS I / 12 - PANTRY - NER POADER ROOM 9 DEW 6REAT ROOM , 21_. L --X 4 HERE \11 Â· a OPEN UP FOR OPEN UP FOR NEW LIVINS AREA ~ BATH LIVINS AREA -6 -4 0 . 01 91-4-- 1 C 12'-7" NEK BEAM ABOVE , SENERAL CONTRACTOR U I 1AlÂ©dehouse Augallo u & L DININe ROOM DININS ROOM - 901 L AABC 1 -1 GREAT ROOM M-- OPEN BEAMS TO REPLACE Aspen,Colorado.81611 EXISTINe MALL 4-10.420.0034 -n Supervisor: Michael Augel LIVINe ROOM E- 12'-11" / 1 -1 1, I m El r===~E~13:- STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 5'-0" PNhite Horse Consultants f ' 418 Masa Verda Drive MUD ROOM 41-011 , 2 F R Carbondale,Colorado.8162: ''/ I.iN L q-to.-104.107 - ~ ~ Contact: Larry Doble - 4 - RELOCATINS ENTRY DOOR ~ SARASE eARABE - = 20'-5" ALLSAIER RESIDENCE 0045 FOReE ROAD ASPEN, COLORADO PROJECT , SCALE: 1/4"=I'-O" MGORMICK REMODEL MOORMICK REMODEL DESCRIPTION MAIN FLOOR EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED PLANS /h iNBAdal)A30 AlINOW*00 Â® 2006 4/ NEIdsw -In Allo THE INFORMATION AND OESIGN INTENT CONTAINED NORTH BuuÂ£ E z NOE: WRITrEN PERMISSION oF JH DESbGN SHEET 03A130311 AI ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF J.H. DESIGN P.C. NO PART OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR . 0 . 0 0 0 0 ---N----- - '4 - - - 1 . 1 % - -.I . 6â€¢UA.1 .Â· r..i 1, ..-1 411'111'ill 11 , 1,11,1 0 11Â£3: ' j,Â© , 1{ 6 will i f 1 4 z 1 H -1 9 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 lit j 1 1 J~ _.Mâ‚¬122*62Mers*v=-Re,EfZLL,M,r- . 12 2 ,(rey iii , ; design ./i: i halferly 215 S. Monarch Ste 202 f t-3'242~iU~~~ ~ 14 1 --TTFTT-:777(~& * AkfaL#%MSAL'. *--~--12 E li i. 3 leil t.{ 11. .\ 1 2911[ikli 'i' itk 1=!7-1-r -- * 1 11,1-/ EF~--4, 514; Z{}ji p._LL-111 i 1% I aspen,c 0.81611 4 3 : .1 % . $: 4 11 . 970.920.4535 3E g ' p S . --/.'. / iii jey:- (44& Ill 1 970.925.6035 FAX ~ 12Â«1 EEP F 44/. ' ' ____- *0- -,v---1 1 i i t i %14% 2 T-T-in-*T-7-7'U~~'. , 4,11 9 * 1, 1 + E--11:Â«4 4 LW - 40 -b----Â»1 j/2 0.-,r,-~4:~1 1 --1- '.0/* t, 1/41.1 1,1 p P 9 1~ Ft= -I mit i 4 t , . 13 1 N. .b .â‚¬ /r -- --- I. 1 3 1/ i: 1 : 1 1 2 F.:g.--lif,i.â€ž4=~ijil----94 #1~-4-U tic=-{i--2 3=---21.-3â€ž-zit-=4â€ž L*BA,5~#406/~t i { 4 j3:*iti i~~ ~_F~~~)1 341<Btpfil 6---r--- -4-- lt- -7 -- -7-*FT-Lt.IZZZI ~ } 2 i f t , 1 ; 1 i i - '12.3-11- 9 lit; 15%1 tiff!3* 1 26&25$1 4 f i '- t 111 24 -9. N 1 , 1 2 5 1 - M 099*i CLIZazz:ZZLE- LIZ-ZZ-=Ii==P=#'===c:==Ag=;==<&*'*%./'vâ€¢. w:=crÂ·"U'./:I<....._ -In,1 - " Fri,-4 ite - . -â€¢- - '11 .--*-'ll---~-*-Ill*...W-*4-ili-.I----~I-*.-6---#I.-r.-k./*I---...~ -- 1--J---Â«--I --- * 1--- 4; it '11 upq, A L i - ' â€¢ Â£.. '. 4,12 ..., 11 , I --- 1 1 1 J -1. - 4 li Eli - le ep-&/444Â«~ 0 ;i. - +- **prir Nik,~*H~~~~t -- .-- - ....------A....#-- -- --------I --h~-------* . t-â„¢----- --- ----4 2---1 - - ' 2=-- - . g./.* -- r j /fikE-X/5~746* /Aft~ TEEEL_22-1._UZZIZ_-D' 1 1 -w--.7: d it f----- t~ 11 * .: L 4 w "1 4,5** ic- 1Â»~,1.211 ilipt) "r ETIi L. NOON CLE,V,it,<14 ' - 4 2 0 Issue: \11 li. E .tr / 1 , c , 1 6. 1 \1 ~ i 3.-~: ~~: .:~.--d---- -- -1 :1 L~~ ~j- itii~1~4*7- ~ i-=*.-4.722,~ =f-~ti . 1 ' 4 1 N â€¢ .-<*A---'' , A#Hil'z=10 , P**52227 43&5_:Â£if \ 05/22/2007 3 '/7 1/-1 , 0 1 L . e;, .It 1 J , 1 1 i R r...1. 1 1- 4 4 -- --- ---,11; !11 ~ f~:, . -- 1 ii ~__ _- ~ 1 11 it' 15*7 , ' _ - i i f 1 1 1 1. . . 4 1 1,9 1, A. lk* - -W }jÂ¢ 1!j -6457' ~-lf LIZE' i .------=, H ; -- --- 4,if <}t 3Â« P L___1 -7 ---- I. ----- 41 1 1 . PERMIT NO. 11211&91&224 , 1, 1 li - D 292224 Â«.i d-- 41.4.---1 1-- --1 1. L / 34#mÂ·/44 , 4 4 ' tz--A-----' b ----- -11 ,: 4 .â€¢. r 2â€¢~4-9 tpi ~, -- - 1 -- - D i.# 'I--.-- .-I-r- t' Ce 1 :'' 1 r *-- - -*4-.-. - *- - --, 7 B:/5-r '*--1-2-2 - FWL,4 1%,R EL 9.79 " '~, ' ' ~ '-- -- -- - ......Â«9.,-.1 ---- --2 4 i t L 1/ 7â‚¬. - 1% -"F-1 i~{ ~ f: *Â»4.-- ---- , ~ OWNER_~66ij-AGarkek -4 t , - 14 1--t----- - -1-_4 - bibbe Init.Â©a- *1161.b - 1 -- --- --- -------1- ADDR/ESS -IME-ENya~.2= j I *i l- ---'----EDIENG-*22121- i . - 7- >CITYCOUNTY---6eeÂ«zip-%('EL i . -1. .......... 4 -- .. ./.- -- . 3; 27/,geÂ·-0- ~. B , , I..=.I ' PARCEL ID_~21.2)-1224.- - i- - -- -- - f :-f~fg 1 I - - --, 1% EAng C>C liÂ»f,/: & - --5 -1.-- .- . 6 -843,17 gtevs 5 4 5' - -- Joug; %40'Â·:t/''eâ€ž 1 V-G 106-6 J t ) 1-- 3 32. , 1 r 41 i. i / ,s L. 4:3 95, ,.Ir 60./CIL_E. ,Â· 01 1.' 1/ - //'F' im -:V t 1 See notes #1 Â·plans , 'pa 1 2 I '.VI,r-...)./IN~.\..W....#I â€¢*I../-"V i â„¢ 1- Â»M'IM:52*#. V. "" - - . -1, P ~ ve----,~.My" -, ,-e P= + ---t-, - -- - y m......... 70.1*lk- I. â€¢+ 4 , *ENERAL CONTRACTOR '1 h 1 J 1 - .~~ - 1 I \ Avalanche Consttiketlon Mgmt PO Box 4254 . . Â· Aspen,Colorado.81612 . -gl 470.544.3532 - 4 *op riew. 27191.2 4 ----- - ~ STRUCTURAL ENGINEER 1 1 49 PlaÂ© 02%951 9-6 @1 41+1- Lt 14 rr PNhite'Horse Consultants < , -- 448 Mesa Verda Drive ~ ~ ' 1 1 - Carbondal@,Colorado,81623 \ . i Exer 970.104.11101 Contact: Larry Doble -4-'~ - 1 - E . - ~ . - _ 119'3 2%9-3 34*.1' 6 - I- . 4-//41577 2221=6 l 11 -7- - **Ill--- ---- EMA h IN'll':J,- '1,7 , .INfllmoo ~ - - ~ - ~~- --~-- E ST. E Sr. exisr EX , f r - c- 0 ' 1110 QD / - 8006 8 8 Nof - --MEW E. i 6-4 Â«)38 - - - 11 0 + ' DECk.5 4 + S MCCORMICK RESIDENCE - 1022 E. HYMAN ' *E#71#M,lea~a-=meel*__- ) ~1 - Â¥ 11 1 : 1 El P Â¥ , 411 1.2 M 1 1 1~ Mlb/. 0 7934 2 -- - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -Ii-qi-*.-- .1-9.9 : -- - ~ ' PROJECT ' , Im>Â«1: Exist ' , 48- 9.le:*(60=re. 4 Plzeeeâ‚¬3123> EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS -- i ~ 45)/ h 1 - Aph' 4 DOOR SCHEDULE E--DERSCHEDULE-- f@ 71â‚¬iâ‚¬I_,_.~,*- 4 - DESCRIPTION 1 Wdw # 1 TYPE 1 W&H 1 Up=--UT SIZE ~ HANDING ~ TYPE 1 NOTE ,~ ~ ,0254*4,7 45Â·+07* L.1 -11--CASEMENT--76"374'6"-EW--1------1 ~_.__-~ | , -4,-3.Q-UTH--CLUMATION- â‚¬ -- 5LAL-F#72TTiP-' - L_* 1 FIXED ' SHEET 4 -00 212 Â£37-7-EXSEMENT-39FF-39--1--NRE-Eil'------------1 iZIZtEZIEMEEEZIbJEiIK3Â£SHERH'UEFEIVACYFRENCH;3'a~m IBEDROOM ONE 11 94" 12'6"W X 6,8.HL_LH_ _PRIVACY i 1 I I -0<Fl~~FIE--------T---iewxip#uMNG*wr-------1 EFITIT-38**Efwrti-VEEIXIB'8HLHEREEEZZIZE] J.H. DESIGN P.C. NO PART OF THIS THE INFORMATION AND DESIGN INTENT CONTAINED WRIUEN PERMISSION OF JH DESIGN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF INFORMATION MAY BE USED WITHOUT THE PRIOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 W.W. /lf.Â·14 ~./.4-1 W=16 i 4.WÂ»-Al:/ .... ./'ll'.Il/." â€¢N~Â»â€¢â€¢.4 'm./.1-/7..'. 0 -la , V. â€¢:.N. ..1, i#*I *. I . 1~â€¢~<~4*- .. .. .. 0. CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR RECEIVED -HIV E R -HOUSE CO-NDOMINIUN JUL 0 9 2818 CITY OF ASPEN GRAPHIC SCALE PARCEL A AND PARCEL B OF THE EUBANK CONDOMINIUMS MAP COMMUNITY DEVELOPUE'!T 10 0 5 10 20 40 COU-NTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. C TI 1/FIrT 1 Trrr T P PIPDTTIPT/ATI $'MY DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THIS PLAT HOLDS FEE SIMPLE TITLE TO THE *R OF ALL LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES EXCEPT \TIFICATE; ALTHOUGH I BELIEVE THE FACTS CERTIFICATE IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN 1 AND AGREED THAT ___-___-_-_..~. NEITHER NY FINANCIAL OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY TE OR LIABILITY WHATSOEVER ON ANY Â¥ ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS _-_ DAY OF NOTARY PUBLIC OVED BY THE COUNTY ENGINEER THIS COUNTY ENGINEER 1ROVAL WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME Y NOTARY PUBLIC tr LS THE ANK CONDOMINIUMS, PITKIN COUNTY, OF TRUST RECORDED AT BOOK___PAGE__ IF TGE REAL ESTATE RECORDS OF PITKIN , HEREBY CONSENTS TO MORTGAGE BY: 'E WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE ME THIS FOR NOTARY PUBLIC ECOUNTY ATTORNEY SIGNS PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE. TENT OR WARRANT THAT THIS UM HAS BEEN CREATED IN 'OUNTY ATTORNEY rIFICATE WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE , BY NOTARY PUBLIC 9. 31944, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A SURVEY ; FOUND TO BE LOCATED THEREON, AS ND SUPERVISION OF THE HEREON DESCRIBED 0 LOCATION AND EXTERIOR DIMENSIONS oF 'HIS MAP AND THE MAP ACCURATELY AND HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS OF THE REOF. THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED IN 92**73. TITLE 38, ARTICLES 33.3 AND 51. 2/*24% 6 10 9 t NOTARY PUBLIC 44 lizi Â·57/7/20013 S EPARATE, LEGAL LOTS UNDER THE PITKIN COUNTY LAND USE CODE. DrUAN A- 0 1 8114W 1 â‚¬11~01%;ar.Â£ b 14&75 DATE 44# ANY ALTERATION, CHANGE, EXPANSION, MODIFICATION OF ANY STRUCTURE IN THE ~...........5 + COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY CONDOMINIUM MAY REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF SUCH ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT MAY BE LAWFULLY EXERCISED OR CREATED, OR ANY 4 '444 L LAGRÂ¢$> RIVERHOUSE CONDOMINIUMS PITKIN COUNTY. THE DECLARANT HAS NOT RESERVED THE RIGHT TO EXERCISE ADDITIONAL JO. NO.: 99164 DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OR MAKE ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS. ANY FUTURE OR a SURPh DATE: 3 /17 /08 ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT MAY REQUIRE THE APPROVAL OF PITKIN COUNTY BEFORE *44,/Juu'J'ttle\m*. ifÂ° ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS MAY LAWFULLY OCCUR. ~ DWG. BY: I<JS 6 0% t 128 WEST \39 STREET RIFLE FO.\ 81650 CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR PARCEL A AND PARCEL B 1 625-3711 935-4700 OF THE EUBANK CONDOMINIUMS MAP NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE UU U RIVER HOUSE CONDOMINIUMS COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO. 3 ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVERED SUCH DEFECT. of IN NO EVENT, WAY AN ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAT TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. 0 . . . 0 . . 0 )41 0 0 1 0. .. 811 .: .., , ''. 0 0 0.,10 0 0. 0. 0 : J , 0 . , 0 0 0 0 0.,0 , . 0 0. 0 1 .. 4 1 0 , 0.1 0 1 ..:: :00 .1 . ID D 0, .:: :00 . 0 '0 4 OlD 0 , 10 4. ..- . .. .D. 1.1 . h , 0. . 0. I .:: :*0 ... ... ..... 0. 0 0. , 0 0..,0 0 - 1 0 I. ':0 : D , D 1. 0 . - 0 - I 0 I I . W. m....SS#*-- il...-- , 0 " . , 0 C , . 4 0 ''- , 0 00.,0 0 0 0 0': I'. 0.0 0 . ... . . . 0 0 0. ---re . 0 0. I ./ : - 1 .. , I. . ,. 0 ...,0 , , ' ,./. , 00 . : . 1 . . 0 . ..0 , 0 '0 , 0 , 0., , ..0 : 0 . 0 . 1 . 0.1.1 . 0 0 ..AD. :. . 0 1 0. .4.0, 0 0 , 0. 0 . 0 0 0. 0. . 0 . , , ' 0 0; 0. 0 0 : 0 0. 0. 0 0 . 0 0. D ..0 D': a, 0. OlD . 0 00 . 0 ... a .. : 0. . : ': 1. 4 0 1 . ... 1 . 0, . , 1. 0 0 I.:'I' I . I .... . : , . .0 I , 0 0 0 00 . 0 , . 0 0, 0 . 0 . a . '' . 0, , D, 00 0 0 D . ':# 0 0 . 0 . 0 '' 0 . . . /0 0 . Jennifer Phelan From: Jennifer Phelan Sent: Wednesday, May 07,2008 8:54 AM To: 'John McCormick' Subject: RE: 1022 E Hyman John: I'm sorry I have to tell you this but yesterday I reviewed what was submitted by your representative and the material does not satisfactorily address my letter from December of 2007 that outlined deficiencies in the original application. â€¢ The responses to the review standards (section 26.435.040 C.) were not answered individually and often were only phrases. â€¢ With regard to the survey you sent me on April 3rd that identifies the top of bank, it can be used but it needs to be to scale and if it was completed by a surveyor it should identify who the surveyor was. â€¢ As noted in my letter, the initial submittal did not include how the building/decks meet or do not meet the height requirement (review criteria 26.435.040.C.9). The additional information still does not address this review standard. â€¢ The floor area calculations provided do not clearly indicate if the calculations include the decks for all of the duplex or only the unit under construction. As a side note, the material submitted does not provide an easy read for identifying the decks in the floor plans. Finally, we cannot allow you to install structure (joists) that has not been approved. I understand that it is more convenient to install the joists while you are undergoing the interior remodel, but it would be inappropriate to allow you to construct something when it has not been approved and the outcome is unknown. Jennifer Phelan, Deputy Director Community Development Department City of Aspen 130 S. Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 PH: 970.429.2759 FAX: 970.920.5439 www.aspenpitkin.com -----Original Message----- From: John McCormick [mailto:john@aspenluxury.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 9:32 AM To: Jennifer Phelan Subject: 1022 E Hyman Dear Jennifer, What I asked you was if you would have a problem with me proceeding with construction as if the Stream Margin review was going to be favorable. At this point , until review, I would extend only the joists from the house and leave them until the review. If the review does not allow for my decks I would agree to cut off any joists that I have extended in order to cantilever the deck. I would hope that my willingness to come in and have the approved decks redlined and therefore eliminated from that building permit demonstrates my desire to act 1 cooperatively with the building department. I will continue to compiy with any directives and appreciate all of your help, John 2 THE CITY OF ASPEN Land Use Application Determination of Completeness Date: December 19,2007 Dear City of Aspen Land Use Review Applicant, We have received your land use application and reviewed it for completeness. The case number and name assigned to this property is 0073.2007.ASLU. The planner assigned to this case isnot assigned. ~1 Your Land Use Application is incomplete: f ' We found that the application needs additional items to be submitted for it to be deemed complete and for us to begin reviewing it. We need the following additional submission contents for you application: 1. Responses to the Stream Margin Review Standards of Section 26.435.040 C. Specifically outline which standards from which you are requesting a variance. 2. The survey identifies the approximate high water line but does not identify the "top of slope" and the fifteen foot minimum set back from the top of slope which need to be identified as they are necessary for the review. Additionally. the elevations provided do not show how the proposed development meet or does not meet the required height (Section 26.435.040 C. 9.). 3. The floor plans identify a new deck adiacent to the kitchen but it is not shown in the corresponding elevations. Which is correct? 4. The dimensional standards for development of this property were not included in the application. Floor area calculations for this lot with the proposed deck addition need to be provided? Please submit the aforementioned missing submission items so that we may begin reviewing your application. No review hearings will be scheduled until all of the submission contents listed above have been submitted and are to the satisfaction of the City of Aspen Planner reviewing the land use application. El Your Land Use Application is complete: If there are not missing items listed above, then your application has been deemed complete to begin the land use review process. Other submission items may be requested throughout the review process as deemed necessary by the Community Development Department. Please contact me at 429-2759 if you have any questions. Page 1 of 2 Thank You, 0/Noul.,tiL-- Jerinifer Phelan,) Deputy Director City of Aspen, Community Development Department Page 2 of 2 r tie Edit Eecord Navigate Fgm Reports Format lab Melp G 1% 1 2 + . H 4 , W O Â¥1 21 "101 ** O 0 914 1 23 + . 99 1 Man Custom bed Yakjahon Pacels Achons , Fee Summary Sub Pe,mits Cond,tions Roul,ng Histor, Fee; Pe,mit Type ~askI -~Aspen Land Use Permit # 009 3.2,009-0 ASLIC Addless |1022 E HYMAN AVE g| ApUSuite |2 Ciwl ASPEN state [EB--3 Zip ~n--121 : Pe,mit Infolmation Maste, Pe,mit ~ .~| Routing Queue ~ash,07 Appied ~12/04/2007 __| Piliect i J status ~pendm Appioved 1-- _f Description i ESA STREAM MARGIN REVIEW Issued 1 1 Find F 3 Submitted |JOHN MCCORMICK oock |E~6- D. 1-6 Expile. 11-*ib-Â·21 Owner Last Name ~CCORMICK Â£| First Name |JOHN PO BOX 1067 ~ASPEN CO 81612 Phone K970] 920-4760 9 Owne, 1:Applicant? Appicant Last Name *CORMICK 21 Ast Name lJOHN PO BOX 1067 .ASPEN CO 81612 Phone ~[9701 920-4700 Cust # ~25661 Lend. Last Name | -:] First Name | Phone ~ Xspeâ€¢14.Qb) -.Ill Reced 2 01 4 A / 14 C./ 1- (4 4 "PN 70â€¢no X09001 i -apt L. - 1 (2 -i J