Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Andrews.56-83 MEMORANDUM TO: Building Department (Bill Drueding and Jim Wilson) County Engineering, Ron Thompson County Attorney, Tom Smith FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Andrews /Pletts Stream Margin Review DATE: November 11, 1983 Attached is material received from Jane Andrews and Sarah Pletts re- questing Stream Margin Review and GMP Exemption. They are requesting these approvals in order to add an addition of approximately 300 s.f. to a commercial building and to add decks and a greenhouse. This case has been scheduled to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 20, 1983. We would appreciate having you comments back by December 6, 1983, in order for the Planning Office to have ample time to prepare for its presentation to the Commission on December 20. Thank you. 412 North Mill St. Aspen, Colorado November 4, 1983 Planning and Zoning Commission City Of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Dear Sirs: We are applying for a stream margin review and have submitted a development plan which supplies the required information in Sec. 24 -6.3 of the code. 1. Our building and proposed decks and greenhouse are not located within a flood hazard area designed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers Flood Plain Report for the Roaring Fork River. This is shown on the map we sub- mitted and will 'ze further testified to in writing by Nick Lampiris, a qualified geologist. 2. There is no trail designed within the develop- ment site. The City of Aspen has a trail easement through our property, but has not decided whether or not the trail should be on our property or across the river. If the trail is planned on our property in the future, we will designate it for public use. 3. We are presently in conformance with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan and will plant trees and flowers around and on our property. 4. No vegetation will be removed by these improve- ments. At present the area behind our build (on oqr property) is bare of vegetation because cars were parked there for several years when an automobile repair shop was in the building. That shop is no longer in operation. We plan to clean up that area, plant trees and re -seed the bare ground, plus planting some flowers where they w :.i1 enhance the property. These will be both aspen and cottonwood trees. There has been no erosion of the stream during the 7 years that we have owned the property, and our proposed additions will not effect the stream in any way. They have all been de- signed by an architect and an engineer licensed to practice in Aspen. 5. We have no intention of changing the stream channel in any way. Our decks are not near the river and the entire building is on fill done before the building was built over 13 years ago. The fill puts our building high above the river. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 November 4, 1983 6. We will be enhancing the river and the trail by our revegetation, decks and greenhouse. At present, the site is ugly and a detriment to the Rio Grand Trail. We will beautify our property by the re- seeding and planting of trees. Jane Andrews is now on the Parks and Trails Committee so will work with them on the restoring of the riverfront to its former natural state. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, -1 7 c Jane Andrews and Sarah Pletts 1 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET City of Aspen No. 5' "75 Staff: A.ria 12-1 ,414. c c„- PROJECT NAME: j+,,grw,co/ae-'S`e- —0/ � a Bi«�i. APPLICANT: f a_ w & cduz&v /, j� FE#�a Phone: ` / 62-S - '75 7 y (fr4a REPRESENTATIVE: Phone: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (Fee) I. GMP /SUBDIVISION /PUD (4 step) 1. Conceptual Submission ($1,840) 2. Preliminary Plat ($1,120) 3. Final Plat ($ 560) II. SUBDIVISION /PUD (4 step) 1. Conceptual Submission ($1,290) 2. Preliminary Plat ($ 830) 3. Final Plat ($ 560) III .EXCEPTION /EXEMPTION /REZONING (2 step) ($1,0 ) 41/73 J_ 'IV. SPECIAL REVIEW (1 step) $ ' 465) I 1.. Special Review 2. Use Determination 3. Conditional Use REFERRALS: Date Referred: / /bibi� ) (Engineering Attorney Sanitation District School District J� Engineering Dept. Mountain Bell Rocky Mtn. Nat.Gas Housing Parks State Hgwy. Dept. Water Hol ross Electric Fire Chief City Electric ire Marsh. / D Other s FINAL ROUTING: Date Routed: 3) 9 ) P1+ \Y Attorney Engineering Building Other DISPOSITION: `ter CITY P &Z REVIEW: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW: Ordinance No. CIT &Z REVIEW: kj *roved 1a)wJ$3 SL4 .ci' -+0! (1) (....);-0,6.1 30 ca 094As Q c, -fnt icot t S $ 1 1, Ovid 1.. I is ' N• 1NQ /'iw o I till A _tu., I : •:. u m n t' s Ja N w • • ;lit t v a or Ca) - t�,o Opp inflict' &t fl f lox) t)t fl r st eP *Lt 0 47 ckd i ccv42 ct 20 '4 n 1I Aa4 otnart"'I '4-yew?. -fie. reptr 11N Q I ocaE iew it l tl�a i 19-41 CRS . (3fl 1 .►tw caustic-kepi tickaJ t CA M D r � a 14 l � a co aj 4 �Ut 1 b Q1ufrr »a$S prkcr is `k Nee_ rrtr+l RT 6A t4) erm rl- (t poN space, space, , 4l Qua vn'}10 QAr3ciwi uiroAh.v4 c ciC0 s CrnP JO A I s Cr-c ra►-) a pt r L it ld � 1.► bas u . I I Ordinance No. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Richard Grice, Planning Office RE: Andrews /Pletts Stream Margin Review and Commercial GMP Exemption DATE: December 20, 1983 The attached application seeks stream margin review approval and a commercial GMP exemption for the addition of a 73.5 square foot greenhouse and 222.75 square foot on three decks to building "B" of the Andrews /McFarlin Condominiums (zoned S /C /I) for a total exemption request of 296.25 square feet. The additions are planned for Zebra Studios which was recently approved as a residential use. The proposed additions will in no way impact the stream channel or riparian zone. The improvements are each planned for the the second floor of the building with only support columns touching the ground. No vegetation will be impacted. Commercial GMP exemptions are permitted upon a finding that the small addition of space will have "minimal or manageable impact upon the community." We believe this to be the case and have no objections to the requested exemption. We understand from the applicant that the space is actually used as a combination commercial and residential and that the two uses are basically inseparable. It is for this reason that have brought the application forward as a commercial GMP exemption, however, in the event the Commission feels the review superfluous we will have no objections. Numerous and extensive building code problems have been encountered by the applicant and the Building Department as they attempt to adapt this building for a mix of residential and industrial uses. You will recall that the Planning Office had consistently opposed residential uses in the S /C /I zone for reason of incompatibility of uses and scarcity of S /C /I space. While the building code problems are not an issue in this review, we want to note for the record that compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code will be required by the Building Department prior to the issuance of building permits. The City Attorney's office has noted some additional peripheral issues for the record and to assist the Building Department in its building permit review. Those issues are as follows: "a. The site shown on the submitted plans is much larger than the site described on the recorded condominium plat. This obviously will affect open space calculations. b. Decks "A" and "B" and the greenhouse are shown significantly close to the property line to give rise to a potential set back problem. c. The application is correct saying that while no trail now goes through the property, the City has (pursuant to the condominiumization) the right to demand a 20 foot easement somewhere on the property at a location to be determined by the City. The stream margin review should contain some mention of this obligation pursuant to Section 24- 6.3(c)(2). d. If the owners don't intend to park cars behind the building any longer, perhaps they will terminate their encroachment license for parking there. That would reduce pollution in that area and mitigate impacts, if any, caused by the con- struction." MEMO: Andrews /Pletts Margin Review and Commercial GMP Exemption December 20, 1983 Page Two The City Engineering Office noted the need for a complete development plan with a signed surveyor's certificate as well as several issues unrelated to this review. We recommend that the approval be con- ditioned upon the submittal of the requested development plan. Chuck Roth's memo of December 8, 1983, is attached for your review. The Planning Office conducted a site inspection of the property in order to consider the appropriateness of a trail. Due to site con- straints, a trail through this property will, in all likelihood, never be requested. Nonetheless, as noted by Gary Esary, a trail easement dedication is a requirement of stream margin and such de- dication on request should be a condition of approval. The Planning Office recommends that you grant approval of the stream margin review and GMP exemption subject to the following: 1. Within thirty (30) days of this approval, the applicant shall provide the City Engineering Department with a com- plete development plan signed by a registered surveyor, and 2. The applicant shall, upon the request of the City of Aspen, dedicate a twenty (20) foot trail easement through the pro- perty in a location to be determined by the City. ri f 1 A ' L.; ' k ,• , L ( J 4 1 v �X? . 7fi ' Y 1� .� : . . i �� . F i r=. , ._ t 4 / , fit. 1 . kil ! L , U Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST PO BOX 10935 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925 -6020 e November 15, 1983 fa"' , Jane Andrews P.O. Box 3786 Aspen, CO. 81612 RE: Proposed Deck, Andrews-McFarlanctCondmminium Dear Mrs. Andrews: This letter is intended to summarize the conclusions reached during my site inspection of your property along the Roaring Fork River in Aspen, discussions with you and Jim Reser of Alpine Surveys, and my subsequent studies of pertinent maps. Generally, my findings are that the deck under construction, as well as the deck proposed to be constructed, should not be affected by the theoretical 100 -year frequency flood. The building under consideration, as well as the one directly to the north, have been built, at least in part, on fill placed along the river's edge some ten to twenty years ago. The 100 -year floodplain study was performed by the Army Corps of Engineers after the modifications in this area, and does show, according to survey work by Alpine Surveys, to be east and north of the new construction. In any event, recent events have influenced my thinking con- cerning possible encroachment of flood waters toward the building under consideration. These are: 1. The level of the Roaring Fork River in this vicinity during the exceptionally high run -off of this spring (1983). According to frequent observations by Jim Reser and others, the Roaring Fork River in this immediate area was some four to six feet below bank full level. 2. The modification of the Mill Street Bridge after the high spring run -off has further decreased the potential for flooding in this area because of the near elimination of the down- stream restriction there. In light of the new stream cross - sectional area there, it is my opinion that a recalculation of the 100 -year floodplain boundary would show it further to the northeast. November 15, 19 Proposed Deck, Andrews - McFarlan Condominium Page Two In conclusion, I believe that the decks proposed for construc- tion should not be threatened by the 100 -year frequency flood. Even if the Roaring Fork River should overflow its banks in this area, most of the water would flow north of the condo- minium resulting in, at worst, back water wetting of the northern most deck.. If you have further questions, please do not hesi- tate to contact me. Sincerely, - Nicholas Lampiris Consulting Geologist NL /clk Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST PO BOX 10935 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925 -6020 November 15, 1983 Jane Andrews P.O. Box 3786 Aspen, CO. 81612 RE: Proposed Deck, Andrews- McFarlancCond,t?minium Dear Mrs. Andrews: This letter is intended to summarize the conclusions reached during my site inspection of your property along the Roaring Fork River in Aspen, discussions with you and Jim Reser of Alpine Surveys, and my subsequent studies of pertinent maps. Generally, my findings are that the deck under construction, as well as the deck proposed to be constructed, should not be affected by the theoretical 100 -year frequency flood. The building under consideration, as well as the one directly to the north, have been built, at least in part, on fill placed along the river's edge some ten to twenty years ago. The 100 -year floodplain study was performed by the Army Corps of Engineers after the modifications in this area, and does show, according to survey work by Alpine Surveys, to be east and north of the new construction. In any event, recent events have influenced my thinking con- cerning possible encroachment of flood waters toward the building under consideration. These are: 1. The level of the Roaring Fork River in this vicinity during the exceptionally high run -off of this spring (1983). According to frequent observations by Jim Reser and others, the Roaring Fork River in this immediate area was some four to six feet below bank full level. 2. The modification of the Mill Street Bridge after the high spring run -off has further decreased the potential for flooding in this area because of the near elimination of the down-stream restriction there. In light of the new stream cross - sectional area there, it is my opinion that a recalculation of the 100 -year floodplain boundary would show it further to the northeast. November 15, 1983 Proposed Deck, Andrews- McFarlan Condominium Page Two In conclusion, I believe that the decks proposed for construc- tion should not be threatened by the 100 -year frequency flood. Even if the Roaring Fork River should overflow its banks in this area, most of the water would flow north of the condo- minium resulting in, at worst, back water wetting of the northern most deck. If you have further questions, please do not hesi- tate to contact me. Sincerely, 1/4,6,4 fur,1061,7 Nicholas Lampiris Consulting Geologist NL /clk 412 North Mill St. Aspen, Colorado November 4, 1983 Planning and Zoning Commission City Of Aspen Aspen, Colorado Dear Sirs' We are applying for a stream margin review and have submitted a development plan which supplies the required information in Sec. 24 -6.3 of the code. 1. Our building and proposed decks and greenhouse are not located within a flood hazard area designed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers Flood Plain Report for the Roaring Fork River. This is shown on the map we sub- mitted and will be further testified to in writing by Nick Lampiris, a qualified geologist. 2. There is no trail designed within the develop- ment site. The City of Aspen has a trail easement through our property, but has not decided whether or not the trail should be on our property or across the river. If the trail is planned on our property in the future, we will designate it for public use. 3. We are presently in conformance with the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan and will plant trees and flowers around and on our property. 4. No vegetation will be removed by these improve- ments. At present the area behind our build (on oqr property) is bare of vegetation because cars were parked there for several years when an automobile repair shop was in the building. That shop is no longer in operation. We plan to clean up that area, plant trees and re -seed the bare ground, plus planting some flowers where they will enhance the property. These will be both aspen and cottonwood trees. There has been no erosion of the stream during the 7 years that we have owned the property, and our proposed additions will not effect the stream in any way. They have all been de- signed by an architect and an engineer licensed to practice in Aspen. 5. We have no intention of changing the stream channel in any way. Our decks are not near the river and the entire building is on fill done before the building was built over 13 years ago. The fill puts our building high above the river. Planning and Zoning Commission Page 2 November 4, 1983 6. We will be enhancing the river and the trail by our revegetation, decks and greenhouse. At present, the site is ugly and a detriment to the Rio Grand Trail. We will beautify our property by the re- seeding and planting of trees. Jane Andrews is now on the Parks and Trails Committee so will work with them on the restoring of the riverfront to its former natural state. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, t. 7 '1,—c, 64,„L c<j3. is . ,.6U A (YIN) Jane Andrews and Sarah Pletts MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Grice, Planning Office FROM: Chuck Roth, City Engineering Department C C nAmE: December 8, 1983 RE: Andrews /Pletts Stream Margin Review Having reviewed the above application, and having made a site inspection, the Engineering Department has the following comments: 1. The review package which the Engineering Department received was incomplete and it was only by chance that it was found that a document was missing from the package - the letter from the geologist. 2. None of the application letters nor the referral memo mentions that an awning is also proposed to be added. The architectural drawings received (sheets 4.1 and 4.3) show an awning, although it is not noted as being "new." The extent of the proposed awning on the east side of the building is not shown. This could be a significant factor because of a problem with the utility meters and boxes which are located on that east side. 3. At the time of the site inspection (December 8, 1983), the utility meters and boxes were severely encased in ice and icicles which may have weighed a hundred pounds or more. Icicles were suspended from the roof edge, and the service drop lines were heavily and perhaps dangerously encased with ice. The building on this side is approximately 51' long. Ice was only evident on approximately the southern 20' of this side, wherein are located said utilities. This is curious. Perhaps the space under this portion of the roof has a poorly insulated ceiling. The utilities should be contacted for their analysis of this hazard. The awning may ameliorate the situation for the meters and boxes (if it is up during the winter - it is not indicated on the plan if it is a temporary, summer, or permanent awning), but not for the service drop lines. 4. The development plan lacks the surveyor's certificate. 5. Neither the existing buildings nor the proposed additions fall within the 100 -year floodplain. 6. Boundary monuments are improvements, and the monuments should be indicated on the development plan. Page Two Andrews /Pletts Stream Margin Review December 8, 1983 7. There is a discrepancy between the developlment plan and the recorded condominium plan, Book 14 at Page 82 in the area and shape of the parcel. The development plan shows an additional approximate 300' in a northeasterly direction of the northerly portion of the parcel by some twenty feet wide. 8. The Engineering Department would like the utility problems addressed and a completed development plan submitted prior to issuance of a building permit or certificate of occupancy. CR /co cc: Jay Hammond Building Department 4 i -8 k TOM Z. CREWS Box 10759 ! Aspen, Colorado 51612 303/925-6397 OCTOBER 12, 1983 SUNNY VANN DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 130 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN, CO. 81612 RE: EXPANSION OF ANDREWS BUILDING DEAR SUNNY, WE HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM P& Z FOR THE USE AS SHOWN ON THE EN CLOSED DRAWINGS, FOR SARAH PLETTS ( 10/4/83 HEARING), AND I AM WRITING IN REGARD TO THE NECESSARY APPROVAL FOR AN EXEMPTION TO THE G.M.P. ( SEC. 24-11.2 (H) ). t.i PjOPOSE TO ADD ,B f8 , SQ. FT. OF INTERIOR SPACE ( A GREENHOUSE) AND SO. FT. OF EXTERIOR SPACE ( A DECK EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING LANDING) TO THE SOUTHWEST PORTION, UPPER LEVEL OF THE ANDREWS BUILDING, 410- 41LNORTH MILL ST., ASPEN, CO. 81612 R \so st•S s. Fi. of G1cx Fgic s�.vc taa fl . 4. z9 5.�. I AM MAKING THIS REQUEST ON BEHALF OF SARAH PLETTS, OWNER OF THE SPACE SHOWN. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT ME AT 925 -6397. SINCERELY, C r - retA)t 7,1f---771711:71 ■ OM CREWS, ARCHITECT Gam:; ic1,83 f _i : _..._...... .« = r -N ,; ; i;;J co TOM Z. CREWS Box 10759 Aspen, Colorado 51612 303/925 -6397 OCTOBER 12, 1983 SUNNY VANN DIRECTOR OF PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 130 S. GALENA STREET ASPEN, CO. 81612 RE: EXPANSION OF ANDREWS BUILDING DEAR SUNNY, WE HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM P& 7 FOR THE USE AS SHOWN ON THE EN CLOSED DRAWINGS, FOR SARAH PLETTS (1074783 HEARING), AND 1 AM WRITING IN REGARD TO THE NECESSARY APPROVAL FOR AN EEMPTION TO THE G.M.P. (SEC. 24-11.2 (H)). �E PROPOSE TO ADD,88 SQ. FT. OF INTERIOR SPACE vl .'S. ( A GREENHOUSE) AND A. SO. FT. OF EXTERIOR SPACE (A DECK EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING LANDING) TO THE SOUTHWEST PORTION, UPPER LEVEL OF THE ANDREWS BUILDING, 410 -41� NORTH MILL ST., ASPEN, CO. 81612, ?'v q1.; svcA. oL Chc.K Cec A C 4„1 Nyt: 4 4.M\OG 19 b.1S S.Y. I AN MAKING THIS REQUEST ON BEHALF OF SARAH PLETTS, OWNER OF THE SPACE SHOWN. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, PLEASE CONTACT ME AT 925 -6397. SINCERELY, OM CREWS, ARCHITECT ASPEN*PITKII\. REGIONAL BUILD,. JG DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Richard Grice, Planning /}� FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement l�M ' DATE: November 15, 1983 RE: Andrews /Pletts Stream Margin Review 1) Improvements have begun on Building 'B'. Condition #4 approved by P &Z on April 6, 1982, requires that the owners enter into a written agreement with the City stating that at the time of improvement of Building 'B', a 20 -foot trail easement would be dedicated. 2) A building permit for interior remodel of the Andrew's unit was issued on 8- 22 -83. The plans had indicated a "future proposed deck ". This deck has already been completed without building department approval. 3) The addition of decks, trail easements, etc., must have some affect on parking. I have yet to see a comprehensive parking plan for this property and feel that one is needed to assess these impacts. 4) There is also a 25% open space requirement. I have never seen this designated and question if the new construction has any impack in reducing open space. cc: Gary Esary, Asst. City Attorney � l - 1 ` �P 71c,4 Patsy Newbury, Zoning Official i ��: . Jim Wilson, Building Official (s'; 41 NOV 1 1933 uk L =' I KIN CO. BD /ar r"LANNNNMMG OFFICE offices: mail address: 110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81911 303/925 -5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 a t t i to itLmsi t — I. kis _67)_ &A_ ll7 5. Cra7C:t- ;ixe -(J Q. a ! P 3f Pa 5/11 jp S - t; fi go SA:4LS ,910 7}1,19 ( II -did IA it 44 2 Sea 24-1),3. Stream margin review. (a) Inc ion. To guide development ana, nconrage appropriate use of land in proximity to designated natural water courses, to promote safety from flooding, to prevent impediment of natural water flow, and to insure provisions for adequate protection and preservation of the designated natural water courses as important natural features. All lands and air space within one hundred (100) feet, measttred mar horizontally from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, shall meet the following requirements prior to the issuance of a building permit or any grading, filling or excavation of said lands. (b) Plan specifications. A development plan shall be submitted to theebor which supplies the following informatio :"'5 0 F "e (1) Boundary of the property for which building is requested; (2) Two'(2) contours; five -foot intervals for grades over ten (10) per cent; (3) Existing and proposed improvements; (4) Construction procedure to be used and (5) Existing trees and shrubs. (c) Review criteria. In reviewing the development plan the zoning commission shall consider the following guide- lines and standards, and impose the following conditions for • permit approval: (1) No building shall be located so as to be within a flood hazard area designated by the U.S. Corps of Engineers Flood Plain Report for the Roaring Fork River. (2) In the event there is a trail designated by an approved trail plan within the development site, such trail shall be dedicated for public use. (3) All attempts should be made to implement the recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan prepared by the Roaring Fork Greenway Committee. (4) Vegetation shall not be removed nor any slope grade changes made that may produce erosion of the stream bank. (5) There shall be permitted no changes to the stream channel or its capacity, and no activity shall be allowed which will increase stream sedimentation and suspension loads. (6) All efforts must be made to reduce stream pollution and interference with the natural changes of the stream, and to enhance the value of the stream as an important natural feature. (Ord. No. 11 - 1975, § 1) ASPEN*PITKII9REGIONAL BUILD:AG DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Esary, Asst. City Attorney 1 FROM: Bill Drueding, Zoning Enforcement L DATE: November 11, 1983 RE: Andrews /McFarlin Buildings 410 -414 N. Mill Gary, did Andrews ever.fulfill conditions one and four? It seems we should get on this' now. cc: Jim Wilson, Chief Building Official Planning Department BD /ar et1. r ;.,' • offices: mail address: 110 East Hallam Street 506 East Main Street Aspen, Colorado 81811 30W925 -5973 Aspen, Colorado 81611 RESOLUTION OF TIIE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDOMINIUMIZATION OF THE ANDREWS /McFARLIN BUILDINGS LOCATED Al 410 -414 N. MILL Resolution No. 82 - WHEREAS, the buildings located at.410 -414 N. Mill are ovined by Robert Andrews and Clyde McFarlin, and WHEREAS., the owners are requesting subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumization, and WHEREAS, the two buildings are located in the S /C /I zone and presently are rented for commercial occupancy, and WHEREAS, the requirements of Sec. ' 20- 22(Condominiumization) of the Municipal Code are interpreted as applying to residential condominiumizations, and. WHEREAS, the owners may at a later date expand the present configuration of their buildings and an extension of the Rio Grande Trail would be possible. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission that subdivision exception for the purpose of condominiumization is granted for the two buildings located at 410 -414 N. Mill under the following conditions: 1. That fee title dedication of the additional right -of -way required to make a total Mill Street right -of -way of 80 feet be made to the City of Aspen at the time of final plat. 2. That the owners enter into a written agreement to participate in the costs of future capital improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, etc.). 3. That the owners agree to comply with the Building Department requirements for correction of life, health and safety deficiencies. 4. That the owners enter into a written agreement with the City stating that at the time of improvement of Building B, a 20 -foot trail easement wou)d be dedicated. \ Approved b trkspen ! Planing and Zoning 'Commission at its regular meeting . April 6, 1982. ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION • Deputy City C1 rlc - -- -- • citrys 0 ,,.�� N 130 so • street _ aspen, • { �_ 81611 • Dec. 8 Richard Grice, Re: Andrews /Pletts Stream Margin and GMP Exemption 1. No apparent open legal issues here - -both requested reviews are pretty straightforward and fact - intensive. 2. I do, however, have some peripheral comments for the record that relate more to the Building Department review of the permits eventually requested. a. The site shown on the submitted plans is much larger than the site described on the recorded condominium plat. This obviously will affect open space calculations. b. Decks "A" and "B" and the greenhouse are shown sufficiently close to the property line to give rise to a Potential setback Problem. c. The application letter is correct in saying that while no trail now goes through the property, the City has (pursuant to the condominiumization) the right to demand a 2'1' easement somewhere on the Property at a location to be determined by the City. The stream margin review should contain some mention of this obligation pursuant to 24- 6.1(c) (2). d. If the owners don't intend to park cars behind the building any longer, perhaps they will terminate their encroachment license for parking there. That would reduce pollution in that area and mitigate imnacts, if any, caused by the construction.