HomeMy WebLinkAboutLanduse Case.SM.501 Sneaky Ln.A14-92 AI, 411
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 2/26/92 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: ;2I�77R7/ 2735-122-20-002 A14-92
STAFF MEMBER: KJ
PROJECT NAME: Read Stream Margin Exemption Review
Project Address: 501 Sneaky Lane, Aspen
Legal Address:
APPLICANT: Sanda Read
Applicant Address: P.O. Box 4307 , Aspen, CO 81612
REPRESENTATIVE: Sandra Read
Representative Address/Phone:
Aspen, CO 81611
PAID:' (NO) AMOUNT: $ .may. ()('/(:)1■10. OF COPIES RECEIVED 3/3
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP:
P&Z Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
II 00 '71'
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO , ^
o
Planning Director Approval: Paid: (Ic04-90)
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
REFERRALS:
City Attorney Mtn Bell School 77- City Engineer X Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn NatGas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State HwyDept (GW)
Aspen Water Fire Marshall State HwyDept (GJ)
City Electric Building Inspector
Envir.Hlth. Roaring Fork Other
Aspen Con. S.D. Energy Center ,�, pp �M /
DATE REFERRED: ,�'02 �� ` INITIALS: (, b�Gf-6, /��`
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 7-2 99' . INITIAL`
City Atty >( City Engineer Zoning Env. Health
Housing Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
•
411 111.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bill Drueding, Zoning Officer
THROUGH: Diane Moore, City Planning Director
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner# U
RE: Read Stream Margin Exemption
DATE: March 20, 1992
SUMMARY: Planning staff recommends approval of Stream Margin
Exemption for the enlargement of an existing residence, with
conditions.
APPLICANT: Sandra Read
LOCATION: 501 Sneaky Lane
ZONING: R-30
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: The Applicant wishes to make several additions.
to her home. Along the river side of the house a portion of the
first floor wall will be moved out 4 ' , a second level wall will be
moved out 6 ' , and new deck will be added. On the northwest side,
one portion of the wall will be extended 4 ' from its existing
location. The garage on the northeast corner of the house will be
reconfigured and expanded. Because portions of the at grade
expansions fall within the stream margin review area (100 ' from
the high water line) , the Planning Office must approve the proposal
prior to issuance of a building permit. Some of the new floor area
within the home will be accomplished by adding second level area
within the existing vaulted volume of the home. See site plan and
application text, Attachment "A" .
REFERRAL COMMENTS: The Parks Department states that no tree
removal permits area required for this project.
Engineering made requests for the establishment of a building
envelope on this site, revegetation, dedication of a fisherman' s
easement, and historic run-off protection. In a March 18 response
to Engineering' s comments, the applicant stated that she does not
wish to create a building envelope. As establishment of a building
envelope is not a code requirement, Planning will not include this
in the conditions of approval.
The applicant offered to remove an existing pedestrian/recreational
easement in exchange for a fisherman's easement, but staff does not
believe this to be advantageous to the City. She does acknowledge
that revegetation will occur on disturbed ground and that
411 110
construction run-off will be prevented from going into Castle
Creek. Additionally, a 1, 000 gallon dry well will be installed to
handle on-site drainage. Please refer to Attachments "B" and "C" .
STAFF COMMENTS: Portions of his project take place within 100 ' of
the high water line of Castle Creek. However, exemption from full
Stream Margin review is possible when the following standards are
met:
1. The proposal does not add more than 10% floor area of the
existing structure or more than 25% of building exempt from
floor area calculations.
RESPONSE: As mentioned above, portions of the floor area
expansion take place within the existing foundation by the
intrusion into upper level vaulted ceilings or raising the roof.
The foundation coverage (building footprint) is approximately 2 , 800
s.f. The proposed foundation expansion within the 100 ' review area
is approximately 220 s. f. , or an 8% increase. Based on the intent
of the stream margin reviews and exemptions within the code, staff
believes the foundation or site coverage expansion should be the
crucial limiting criteria.
The application points out that within the review criteria for
stream margin exemptions, two applications of expansion are used.
In Section 7-504 B. 1. uses the term "floor area" and Section 7-
504 B. 5 uses the term "ground coverage" . Understanding the intent
of the exemption allowance, which places reasonable limits on
stream margin development not requiring full review by the Planning
Commission, the impacts of ground coverage expansion should be
considered in addition to the raw floor area expansion of a
proposal. Existing floor area on the parcel is approximately 3 , 250
s. f. with proposed floor area expansion of 1,500 s. f. Please see
page 2 of the application.
2 . No trees will be removed, or required removal permits are
granted.
RESPONSE: No trees will be removed within the 100 ' review area.
However, one pine will be relocated without requiring a permit.
3 . No portion of the expansion, remodeling, or reconstruction
will be any closer to the high water line than the existing
development.
RESPONSE: The closest existing ,development to the river is decking
at 31. 5 ' from the bank. No portion of proposed structural
addition, either deck or foundation, is closer to the river than
this distance.
4 . The development does not fall outside of an approved building
envelope, if one has been designated through prior review.
RESPONSE: There is no approved building envelope for this site.
! i
5. The remodeling or expansion will cause no increase to the
ground coverage within the Special Flood Hazard Area.
RESPONSE: The proposal is located completely outside of the 100 '
floodplain as determined by Rob Thomson on March 20, 1992 .
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Stream Margin
Exemption for the Read Residence expansion as represented in this
application with conditions.
I hereby approve the Stream Margin Exemption for the Read
Residence expansion as proposed, with the following
conditions:
1) Revegetation is required for any disturbed soil on the
site. This shall be inspected by Planning or Engineering
staff prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
2) Construction run-off into Castle Creek shall be
prevented by implementing a site drainage plan approved
by Engineering staff prior to issuance of a builiding
permit.
()pi
Di Moore,/ City Planning Director Dat-
Attachments:
"A" - Application Text and Site Plan
"B" - Engineering Referral Memo
"C" - March 18, 1992 Response to Engineering Memo
• •
SANDRA L. READ `
BOX 4307 tt 1 8 1992
ASPEN, COLORADO 81612 \, 1/
MARCH 18, 1992
By Hand
Ms. Kim Johnson
Planning Department
City of Aspen
130 Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
re: Read Application for Exemption
From Stream Margin Review
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Thank you for providing me with a copy of the comments submitted to
you by the City of Aspen Engineering Department about my application for an
exemption from the Stream Margin Review procedures. Having had an
opportunity to review those comments I wish to submit my own comments
in response to those of the Engineering Department.
Before specifically addressing the comments of the Engineering
Department I believe a general comment is in order. The comments of the
Engineering Department in some respects go far beyond the scope of Section
7-504 B of the Aspen Code. From my understanding of the regulations these
comments would seem more appropriate in a proceeding for Stream Margin
Review rather than as comments to an application for an exemption from
those provisions of the code.
Regarding the comments of Engineering Department I request that the
following be taken into consideration:
1. A building envelope for this building site should be established by
the Planning Department. Then the applicant must make a statement
on the permit set of drawings, indicating there will be no disturbance
of the vegetation between the building envelope and the river.
The applicant asserts as a general matter that this comment,
particularly the first sentence, goes far beyond the scope of Sec. 7-504 B. The
request by the Engineering department that the Planning Department
establish a building envelope for Lot 2 of the Parry Subdivision is wholly
,f • •
inappropriate. To establish a site specific building envelope for this particular
Lot disregards the intent underlying the code provisions and places an
inequitable burden on the applicant. Moreover, to establish such a building
envelope for the Lot when the majority of the property lies outside of the
purview of the relevant regulations regarding Stream Margin Review would
limit the applicant's use and enjoyment of the property without basis in the
intent of the overall land use regulations of the City of Aspen. It may be that
the Engineering Department does not have a complete understanding of the
requirements for the designation of a site specific building envelope. The
zoning applicable to this particular Lot establishes the "set backs" and "FAR"
requirements for development on the property, and the applicant asserts that
the proposed renovation to the dwelling located on Lot 2 meet those
particular requirements. Therefore, the applicant strongly objects to
establishing a building envelope for this Lot.
Regarding the second sentence of this comment, the applicant is fully
prepared and agrees to return all disturbed areas of the property to the
condition existing prior to the renovation project. To require that the
applicant commit to "no disturbance" of vegetation, much of which the
• applicant planted, is unduly restrictive.
2. The applicant is required to plant any regarded area inside the
building envelope with species keeping with the Roaring Fork
Greenway Plan as well as existing plants in the area.
As noted above, the applicant strongly objects to the establishment of a
building envelope for Lot 2 of the Parry Subdivision. However, as also noted
above, the applicant is willing and prepared to restore any disturbed portion
of the property to its condition prior to the renovation project. As illustrated
in Exhibit 1 to the applicant's submission of February 26, the area of
development which will require revegetation is significantly to the East of
Castle Creek and therefore are not covered by the Greenway Plan.
3. The applicant is requested to grant a fisherman 's easement for the
river or stream and for a width of five feet along the bank.
The applicant is prepared to grant such an easement subject to the
following condition. The applicant will grant such an easement, if and only
if, the City of Aspen releases the existing pedestrian recreational easement on
the property and assumes all liability for fisherman utilizing the stream.
4. A construction site drainage plan and procedure should be
considered prior to the issuance of a demolition, excavation or building
permit. The construction procedures employed must be such that no
runoff from rain or snow melt be permitted to drain to the river from
• •
contact with disturbed earth. The construction procedure used will in
no way impact the stream.
The applicant agrees and commits to implement a construction site
drainage plan that will insure that no site drainage will migrate to Castle
Creek and there will be no impacts upon the stream.
5. It appears that the proposed development will create additional
impervious surfaces. The engineering staff requests that the applicant
give consideration to maintaining historic storm runoff and
preventing any increased storm runoff from entering Castle Creek.
The applicant's detailed construction plan specifies the installation of a
1000 gallon dry well to accommodate any increased rain or snow melt runoff
generated by the renovation project. In addition, the applicant's plans
contemplate a restructuring of the roof directions of the structure that will
allow any runoff to be redirected to irrigate the lawns and landscaping on the
project site.
6. The location of the 100 year flood plain line as shown on Exhibit 1 of
the application can not(sic) be confirmed. The applicant must submit
Exhibit 1, to the engineering department, with existing contours of the
land in two foot intervals.
The applicant's representative spoke with the engineering department
concerning this requirement on Tuesday, March 17, 1992. As a result of this
conversation the applicant has directed that representatives of the applicant's
contracted survey firm meet with the engineering department to discuss this
issue. The applicant asserts that the entire renovation project lies outside of
the 100 year flood plain line. The applicant further asserts that the relevant
factor is not the precise location of the 100 year flood plain line, but rather that
the proposed renovation project is outside the line. This matter should be
resolved through discussion rather than by requiring the applicant to go to
the substantial added expense of a complete site survey.
The applicant requests that the responses contained herein be
expeditiously considered and that applicant's application for an exemption
from the provisions 7-504 C of the Aspen Code be granted.
Sincerel
.1
Sandra L. Read
cc: Dick Fallin
•
ASPEN/PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone 920-5090 FAX 920-5197
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Engineer
Parks Department
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
RE: Read Stream Margin Exemption Review
Parcel ID No. 2735-122-20-002
DATE: February 28, 1992
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Sanda Read requesting
an exemption from a stream margin review for a proposed remodel of an existing structure.
Please return your comments to me no later than March 13, 1992.
Thank you.
'-r("1/4 (/°
1) - /, •
411 111
MESSAGE DISPLAY
TO KIM JOHNSON
From: Rebecca Baker Acting for: George Robinson
Postmark: Mar 13 , 92 1:56 PM
Subject: Read Stream Margin Exemption
Message:
George asked me to contact you regarding this. He wants to know why
the tree needs to be relocated? Basically if its being relocated on
the owners property, no tree permit is required. But George didn't
see the need to relocate the tree in the first place (#2 - Relocate
Austrian Pine) . Thanks! ! !
X
• 47T A44 �."
Sandra L. Read
Post Office Box 4307
Aspen, Colorado 81612
February 26, 1992
By Hand
Ms. Kim Johnson
Planning Department
City of Aspen
130 Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
re: Application for an exemption from
Stream Margin Review
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 7-504, of the Aspen Code, Land Use
Regulations, this application is filed to seek an exemption from the provisions of 7-504 C.
The applicant, Sandra L. Read, is a private citizen, full time resident of the City of
Aspen, and the owner and resident of a single family residence located at 501 Sneaky
Lane. The remodel of this residence is the subject of this application.
The majority of the existing structure is located within 100 feet, measured
horizontally, of the high water mark of Castle Creek, a tributary of the Roaring Fork River,
and therefore, the applicant's proposed remodel of the structure is subject to the provisions
of Sec. 7-504 of the Aspen Code. The Applicant has prepared a detailed site plan which
depicts the areas to be added to the existing structure when the structure is remodeled,
which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
Section 7-504 B of the Aspen Code sets forth 5 standards which have to be met in
order for the proposed remodel to be exempted from stream margin review.
1. The development does not add more than ten(10) percent 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(25) percent;
Response:
• •
As indicated on Exhibit 1, the applicant proposes to expand the square footage
of the existing structure by approximately 1,500 square feet. The existing
structure at present has approximately 3,250 gross square feet. Therefore, if
the provisions of Sec. 7-504 B 1 are applied literally, then the proposed remodel
does not meet the first standard for exemption. However, if the particular
nature of the remodel and expansion are taken into account, and the intent
underlying the land use regulations regarding stream margin review are taken
into account, then the proposed remodel does meet the standard.
While the applicant's proposed remodel contemplates a significant increase in
square footage to the structure, this increase in square footage is the result of
reconfiguration of existing spaces within the structure and raising the roof over
a portion of the structure. This increase in square footage will be achieved
without making major changes to the overall footprint of the existing structure.
Although applicant proposes to increase the overall square footage of the
structure by approximately 46 percent, the footprint or the ground coverage of
the structure, as measured by the foundation walls of the existing structure, will
increase by approximately 19 percent. (Currently the area within the foundation
walls measures approximately 2,800 square feet, the proposed remodel will add
approximately 530 square feet to this area).
•
Importantly, a majority of this proposed expansion to the existing footprint or
ground coverage is the result of adding a garage bay (approximately 380 square
feet) on the northeast side of the existing structure away from Castle Creek.
(Label "G" on exhibit 1). A substantial portion (approximately eighty percent
[80%] or, approximately 310 square feet) of this proposed addition is beyond
one hundred feet(100') from the high water line of Castle Creek. As this new
square footage is outside of the purview of the applicable regulation, then the
total expansion is less than 10,percent and the standard in 7-504 B 1 has been
met.
It is the applicant's position that when adopted, this regulation was intended to
preclude remodels and renovations which contemplated significant increases in
the ground coverage of a particular project either within one hundred(100) feet
of a waterway,or within the one hundred year flood plain. For that reason Sec.
7-504 uses terms such as "floor area", Sec. 7-504 B. 1., and "ground
coverage", Sec 7-504 B.5. Had the intention been to uses square footage as the
criteria, the regulation would have so stated specifically.
It is also the contention of the applicant that development beyond the one
hundred(100) feet limit from the high water line is beyond the applicability of
this regulation. This position is predicated upon the terms of Sec. 7-504 A.,
Applicability. The limits established in this section speak only to development
within this distance and not to development outside of the limit. This limit was
established in order that the underlying intent behind the regulation, the
preservation of the river and stream banks, and safety, be achieved without
extending review authority to cases clearly not intended to be covered by the
regulation.
'' •
2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for which a permit
would be required pursuant to section 13-76 or the applicant receives a permit
pursuant to said subsection;
Response:
The proposed remodel of the existing structure does not require the removal of
any tree for which a permit pursuant to section 13-76 would be required. The
only tree affected by the proposed remodel is an Austrian Pine approximately 20
feet in height located at the Northeast corner of the existing structure. (See
Exhibit 1, tree labeled "T".) This tree is in excess of one hundred (100') of the
high water line of Castle Creek and therefore is not subject to these regulations
or standards. However, the tree is to be relocated, not removed from the
property.
3. 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;
Response:
At present the closest part of the existing structure to the high water line of
Castle Creek is 31.5 feet, measurement taken from the survey included in
Exhibit 1. ( Label "A" on Exhibit 1.) This is the distance from the Southwest
corner of the existing above ground deck to the indicated high water line. No
portion of the proposed remodeled structure, either decks or foundation walls,
will be any closer to the high water line of Castle Creek than this distance.
4. The development does not fall outside of an approved building envelope, if
one has been designated through a prior review:
Response:
There is no approved or designated building envelope for this piece of land.
5. The development is located completely outside of the special flood hazard
area and more than one hundred(100) feet measured horizontally, from the high
water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams or the expansion,
remodeling or reconstruction will cause no increase to the amount of ground
coverage of structures within the special flood hazard area.
• •
•
Response:
The proposed remodel is completely outside of the one-hundred-year
floodplain, as shown on Exhibit 1. To the best of the applicant's knowledge,
the proposed remodel is not located in a special flood hazard area.
Summary
For the reasons set forth above, the applicant's proposed remodel of the
existing structure located at 501 Sneaky Lane has met the standards for an
exemption from stream margin review as set forth in Sec. 7-504 B of the Aspen
Code, Land Use Regulations.
If there are any questions regarding this application, the applicant can be reached at
920-1551.
Respectfully subMiftel,
� J
.�
Sandra`L. Read
Applicant
Enclosures
�
_ _ _
AO/ace n
MEMORANDUM l�� ,= .'�,.- r. f J "
f
NARit
;t. � 992 ; ��.
To: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
From: Rob Thomson, Project Engineer pr
Date: March 10, 1992
Re: Read Stream Margin Exemption
Having reviewed the above application, and having made a site
inspection, the engineering Department has the following
comments:
1. A building envelope for this building site should be
established by the Planning 'Department. , Then the applicant must
make a statement on the permit set of drawings, indicating there
will be no disturbance of vegetation between the building
envelope and the river.
2 . The applicant is required to plant any regraded area inside
the building envelope with species keeping with the Roaring Fork
Greenway Plan as well as existing plants in the area.
3 . The applicant is requested to grant a fisherman's easement
for the river or stream and for a width of five feet along the
bank.
4. A construction site drainage plan and procedure should be
considered prior to the issuance of a demolition, excavation or
building permit. The construction procedures employed must be
such that no runoff from rain or snowmelt be permitted to drain
to the river from contact with disturbed earth. The construction
procedure used will in no way impact the stream.
5. It appears that the proposed development will create
additional impervious surfaces. The engineering staff requests
that the applicant give consideration to maintaining historic
storm runoff and preventing any increased storm runoff from
entering Castle Creek.
6. The location of the 100 year flood plain line as shown on
Exhibit 1 of the application can not be confirmed. The applicant
must submit Exhibit 1, to the engineering department, with
existing contours of the land in two foot intervals.
rt/caseload92 . 006