HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.apz.19981117 AGENDA
ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1998, 4:30 PM
SISTER CITIES MEETING ROOM, CITY HALL
I. COMMENTS
A. Commissioners
B. Planning Staff
C. Public
MINUTES (10/06/98, 10/20/98, 11/03/98)
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
IV. PUBLIC HEARING
4:4s-s:~s A. 117 North 6th Street, Historic Landmark, Amy Guthrie
V. ACTION ITEMS
s:~5-s:4s A. Elden Stream Margin Review, 727 Bay Street, Chris Bendon
VI. INFORMATION ITEM
s:45~:~s A. Land Use Code Streamlining, John Worcester
VII. NEW BUSINESS
6:~s-6:45 A. AACP Draft Statements, Stephanie Millar
6:45-7:00 B. Long Range Planning Meeting and Discussion
VIII. ADJOURN
II.
IH.
CITY AGENDAS
11/12 BOA
Staff Effectiveness Survey
11/17 City Planning & Zoning (4:30)
City Notice 10/27
117 N. 6th Street, Landmark, Public Hearing (AG)
Elden Stream Margin Review, 727 Bay Street (CB)
Land Use Code Streamlining, Work Session
AACP Draft Statements (SM)
Discussion of Long Range Planning Sessions
11/18 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 11 /3
AACP
117 N. 6th Street (continued from 11 / 11)
421 W. Hallam Street, Minor (continued from 10/28)
930 King, Final
11/23 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 11/3
735 W. Bleeker, Landmark, 2d Reading Public Hearing (AG)
Truscott Place AH Work Session (BN)
Smuggler Hunter Trust, Subdivision & Rezoning, 2d Reading Public Hearing (CB)
117 N. 6th Street, Landmark, 1st Reading (AG)
11/25 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 11 /3
Canceled due to holiday
Moved up to 11118
12/1 City Planning & Zoning (4:00)
City Notice 11/10
Burlingame Meeting with City Council and Housing Authority
12/7 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 11/17
Code Amendment, Security Signage, 1 st Reading (MH)
12/8 City Planning& Zoning (4:30) Library
City Notice 11/17
Castle Creek Condos (Hallam House) Rezoning, Public Hearing (CB)
234 W. Hallam, Conditional Use for 2 ADU's, Public Hearing (CB)
126 Park Avenue, Conditional Use & Residential Design, Public Hearing, (continued from 10/6),
(CB)
LP Program & Minor PUD, Work Session (CB)
12/9 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 11/17
117 N. 6th Street, Final
AACP Discussion
12/10 DRAC
440 North 5th Street (MH)
12/14 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 11 /24
USFS 8th Street AH Work Session (BN)
Castle Creek Condos (Hallam House) Rezoning, 1 st Reading (CB)
Code Amendment HPC, 2d Reading Public Hearing (AG)
117 N. 6th, Landmark, 2d Reading Public Hearing (AG)
12/15 City Planning & Zoning (4:00)
City Notice 11 /24
Joint Meeting with City Council (Small Lodge only)
Small Lodge (LP) Program, Work Session
(5: 30) Burlingame Seasonal Housing, Conceptual PUD, Public Hearing (CB)
12/23 HPC (5:00)
City Notice 12/ 1
Canceled
12/28 City Council (5:00)
City Notice 12/8
Canceled
cc: P&Z Packet
Community Development Admin. Staff
City Attorney's Office
City Planning Staff
City Clerk's Office
g:/planning/aspen/agendas/comingup.doc/
11/11/98
4
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL, THE PITKIN COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY
HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND THE VARIOUS CITIZEN COMMITTEES
INVOLVED IN THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN UPDATE RESEARCH
DEVELOPING A NEW MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE ON THE
BURLINGAME/ZOLINE PROPERTIES AND EXTENDING THE TOWNSITE
GRID TO THE GOLF COURSE PARCEL FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN A MORE DESIRABLE DEVELOPMENT
PATTERN.
Resolution #98 .347-0
-
WHEREAS, there is a clearly defined need for affordable housing in the upper
Roaring Fork Valley and. within the City of Aspen; and,
WHEREAS, during the January, 1998, "Housing Roundtable" the elected and
appointed officials of Pitkin County and the City of Aspen, realizing this need, made a
commitment to provide five hundred (500) new affordable housing units by the
Millennium (2001); and,
WHEREAS, the Housing and Growth Committees for the Aspen Area
- Community Plan are contemplating a goal of building approximately eight hundred
twenty (820) additional units of affordable housing in the next five years; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission believes it is important to build upon those
qualities of the natural and built environment which have made Aspen a special place;
and,
WHEREAS, the Commission prefers development patterns which promote good
neighborhood design, emphasize the development of "community" rather than "units,"
preserve our rural and open lands, promote transit usage, help define the town's urban
edge, are contiguous to existing development, represent efficiencies in infrastructure,
represent frugal use of public monies, and which avoid leapfrog -type development; and,
WHEREAS, the original Townsite plat of 3,000 square foot lots provides a
development pattern which the Commission finds preferable over the suburban typology;
and,
WHEREAS, the Townsite grid promotes desirable urban design patterns of mass,
scale, and repetition for which Aspen has expressed a preference with the adoption of
Ordinance 30, Series of 1995; and,
WHEREAS, the Townsite grid of 3,000 square foot lots promotes a self-
regulating house size limitation and avoids the appearance of a "housing project" by
allowing personal expression in design; and,
WHEREAS, an extension of the Townsite grid would promote better living
conditions and a healthier, safer, and more efficient development pattern than a remote,
suburban development on the Burlingame/Zoline parcels; and,
WHEREAS, an extension of the Townsite grid would allow Aspen the
opportunity to include all segments of the society in a traditional type of neighborhood
and would provide hope to those members of Aspen's workforce seeking inclusion and a
chance to become vested members of the community; and,
WHEREAS, the development of the Burlingame/Zoline parcels as a municipal
golf course would provide a "soft edge" greenbelt to the town -- the original intent of the
golf course, preserve open space where it is appropriate -- the entrance to Aspen, preserve
the base of Deer Hill, and provide an opportunity for major golf tournaments to use 36
holes in coordination with the Maroon Creek Club; and,
WHEREAS, directing growth to one primary area of town would build
confidence in the public's ability to house its workforce and make decisions which are
insightful and have a positive influence on the town's future, preserve our rural and open
lands by lessening the demand to develop scattered sites, and ease the public's fears about
where affordable housing might occur; and,
WHEREAS, extending the Townsite grid to the Marolt parcel and/or the Golf
Course would provide a more transit friendly development pattern, allowing citizens the
opportunity to live with less reliance on the automobile, than would a more suburban
development on the Burlingame/Zoline properties; and,
WHEREAS, if combined with a program such as encouraging more affordable
housing in the downtown, extending the Townsite could accommodate all of Aspen's
affordable housing needs for the foreseeable future; and,
WHEREAS, this type of development pattern could be accommodated without
having to extend municipal services to scattered sites located outside of town; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission believes this type of growth pattern and
commitment to the community would better meet the goals and intent statements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the Commission believes maintaining an open mind to new ideas
and being a catalyst for positive change are traits Aspenites value; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting of the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission on November 17, 1998, the Commissioners considered and approved this
Resolution, by a 6 to 0 vote.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Aspen City Council, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, and the various citizen committees involved in
the Aspen Area Community Plan should research the development alternative of a new
municipal golf course on the Burlingame/Zoline properties and extending the Townsite
grid to the Golf Course parcel for the purpose of providing affordable housing in a more
desirable development pattern.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 17, 1998.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I
City Attorney V
ATTEST:
4
ackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF ASPEN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
Sara Garton, Chair
A RESOLUTION OF T-'E A SPENIPI TKIN COUNTY HOUSING BOARD
OPP0S1VVG A STUDY TO DEVELOP THE BURLINGAIWEI' OLINE
PROS RTIES AS A ,,'VEW ��fi. NIC11" AL GCLF COURSE AND
EXTENDING THE TOWNSITE GRID TO THE ASPEN GOLF
COURSE PARCEL F-OR THE PURPOSES OF PROVIDING
AFFORDABL'- 1-lO US1�l G
Resolution 98-06
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) has passed a
resolution proposing that the City research the development of a municipal golf course on
the Burlingame/ Zoline property and extending the townsite grid to the golf course for the
purpose of providing affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen ;Municipal Golf Course is designated open space; and
WHEREAS, the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan identified the
Burlingame/Zoline property as appropriate for affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan recommends against a single
big project solution to affordable housing except on certain large parcels where micro -
community development might be appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the 1993 Aspen Area Community Plan identified the Aspen Municipal
Golf Course as open space; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Municipal Golf Course has never been identified in any
community or long-range plan as appropriate for housing; and
WHEREAS oreser�atien of desicnated open space and commu,rinw c"aracter is
n r * :t ..�� ��1 Iv, i �i�I.il� n lQ1 dem, t�th J r� r. �rl
an r~�.�Ci lul„ community �I�. �-1 ; . l i �0aI CI
providing affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, it is the Aspen/ Pitkin County Housing Authori -y car�'s ',n'tent to
maintain a high level or" community support for the housing program by maintaining
credibility among community residents, and that credibility relies on the community's
perception that the affordable housing program is implemented in harmony with other
community values, such as open space, character and neighborhood compatibility; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is working in partnership with the Zoline family to
create a development that is consistent with the goals of both property owners, the Zoline
family wishes to maintain the existing agricultural operation, and alternate use of the
Burlingame/Zoline property is not consistent with this goal and may threaten this
partnership; and
WHEREAS, a proposal to construct a golf course on the Burlingame/Zoline
property and to construct housing on the golf course, while based on rational planning
notions to minimize sprawl and concentrate new growth in/or adjacent to existing urban
centers, does not take into account community character, the value of urban open space,
the trading of impacts, the need for continuity in neighborhoods and is contrary to these
and other long established community values;
WHEREAS, discussion of this idea as a serious option for affordable housing
endangers the entire housing program, could delay specific housing proposals currently
2
undo consideration by bGth the Cit f of Aspen and ;, , I Count./ and Con ?r; i S the worst
r� v' om i it`� m MUcrs _ hat the '` d tIe -� �, �-�r o.v�rer, .aces not
fear �i man community �ml.ni� e. �c -,tici u , .o sly
respect community values, such as open space and community character; and
WHEREAS, beyond these intangible considerations of balancing values in the
community, the hard costs assec;ated with relocation of the Golf Course to provide sites
for affordable housing would impose harsh and impractical economic burdens on both the
Housing and Open Space programs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Board that the proposal to study the development of a municipal golf course on the
Burlingame/Zoline property and to extend the townsite grid to the Aspen Municipal Golf
Course for the purpose of providing affordable housing is contrary to the public interest
and that research of this idea is neither appropriate nor warranted.
APPROVED by the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Board at a Special Meeting held
on November 24, 1998.
ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY
Fr k S. Peters, Chairperson
3
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
Mary . Ro erts, Assistant Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer
RE: 117 N. 6th Street, Landmark Designation
DATE: November 17, 1998
SUMMARY: The original portion of this house was built in 1885 and at least two
additions have been made to it, both early in the house's history. A shed which appears
to be historic also sits on the property. The buildings and the site are relatively
unchanged from the Victorian period and staff finds that three of the landmark
designation standards: architectural importance, neighborhood character, and community
character, are met.
HPC reviewed and recommended approval for landmark designation of this site by a vote
of 7-0 on November 11, 1998.
APPLICANT: Lynnie Coulter, represented by Studio B Architects.
LOCATION: 117 N. 6th Street, Lots G, H, and I, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen.
HISTORIC LANDMARK
Section 26.76.020, Standards for designation. Any structure that meets two or more of
the following standards may be designated "H," Historic Overlay District, and/or Historic
Landmark. It is not the intention of the City Council to landmark insignificant. structures
or sites. The City Council should focus on those which are unique or have some special
value to the community:
A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary structure
or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of historical
significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the State of
Colorado, or the United States.
Response: This standard is not met.
B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style
that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site
embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural
type (based on building form or use), or specimen.
Response: This structure is a good example of the traditional Aspen miner's cottage,
built in the late 1800's. It is one story with a gable roof, typical door and window
proportions and materials. It is unusual in its relative lack of decoration (other than the
porch posts) and the fact that its main roofline runs parallel to the street rather than the
crossgable form which is more frequent in Aspen.
C. Designer_. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose
individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Response: This standard is not met.
D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of an
historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site is
important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
Response: The structure is part of the West End neighborhood, where the majority of
Aspen's Victorian era homes are located. The block on which this house is located has
three other historic houses, and adjacent blocks to the east and north are also primarily
historic resources, making this site an important contributor to the character of the area.
The characteristics of the site are somewhat unique. It retains a dramatic stand of historic
cottonwood trees across the front of the site, as well as an irrigation ditch. It is therefore
an excellent representation of the historic appearance of the neighborhood.
E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the
character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size,
location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or
architectural importance.
Response: The majority of Aspen's historic resources are Victorian era homes. These
resources contribute significantly to the town character by representing, through
architecture, the lifestyle, values, economics, technology, and aesthetics of an important
period in Aspen's development. The cottage at 117 N. 6th Street is part of that historical
record and its preservation therefore has important value to the community.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to recommend approval of historic designation
for 117 N. 6th Street to City Council, finding that standards B, D, and E are met."
Exhibits:
Resolution No. , Series of 1998
Exhibit "A" - Current photograph of property
2
��3 � . 7L--�
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF 117 NORTH SIXTH
STREET, LOTS G, H, AND I, CITY OF ASPEN.
Parcel No. 2735-124-45003
Resolution #98 -
WHEREAS, the applicant, Lynnie Coulter, represented by Studio B Architects, has
requested landmark designation for the property located at 117 N. 6th Street, Lots G, H,
and I, Block 18, City and Townsite of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission reviewed and recommended
approval of landmark designation by a vote of 7-0 on November 11, 1998; and
WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer recommended approval of
landmark designation in her memo to the Planning and Zoning Commission of November
17,' 1998; and
WHEREAS, all applications for Historic Landmark Designation shall meet two or more
of the following Standards for Designation of Section 26.76.020 in order for HPC to
grant approval, namely:
A. Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary
structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of
historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen, the
State of Colorado, or the. United States.
B. Architectural Importance. The structure or site reflects an architectural style
that is unique, distinct or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or site
embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique architectural
type (based on building form or use), or specimen.
C. Designer. The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer
whose individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
D. Neighborhood Character. The structure or site is a significant component of
an historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or
site is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
E. Community Character. The structure or site is critical to the preservation of
the character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size,
location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or
architectural importance; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and recommended
approval of landmark designation on November 17, 1998, finding that standards B, D,
and E are met.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends Council approve landmark
designation for 117 N. 6th Street, Lots G, H, and I, Block 18, City and Townsite of
Aspen..
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 17, 1998.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Sara Garton, Chair
ATTACHMENT 8-1
County of Pitkin } AFFIDAVIT OF NOTICE PURSUANT
} SS. TO ASPEN LAND USE REGULATION
State of Colorado } SECTION 26.52.060 (E)
, being or representing an
Applicant to the City of Aspen, personally certify that I have complied with the public notice
requirements pursuant to Section 26.52.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Regulations in the following
manner:
1. By mailing of notice, a copy of which is attached hereto, by first-class, postage prepaid
U.S. Mail to all owners of property with three hundred (3 00) feet of the subject
property, as indicated on the attached list, on the 22. day of 04-Tasfr-,199g(which is 21
days prior to the public hearing date of NPV 11-If
2. By posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the subject property (as it could be seen
from the nearest public way) and that the said sign was posted and visible continuously
from the sr day of WOYEMBE� 199 (Must be posted for at least ten (10) full
days before the hearing date). A photograph of the posted sign is attached hereto.
+ Signatur$
' I _
_T --- Signed before me this ' day
PUBLIC NOTICE
DATENOV1714
•�'� TIME 4!'7,".PM
PURPOSE -
.''I, :.11rol'F 1. haK
,199 �by
WITNESS MY CIAL SEAL
My commission eNIRY PUBLIC
My COMMISSION
APRIL 29, 2002
Notary Public cc
Notary Pubjiq's Si
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: 117 NORTH 6TH STREET - LANDMARK DESIGNATION,
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 17,
1998, at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm before the Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission in
Council Chambers, basement of City Hall, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado, to consider an
application submitted by Lynnie Coulter requesting approval for landmark designation. The
property is located at 117 North 6th Street, and is described as Lots G, H. and I, Block 18, City and
Townsite of Aspen. For further information, contact Amy Guthrie at the Aspen/ Pitkin Community
Development Department, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO. (970) 920-5096.
s/Sara Garton, Chair
Aspen Planning & Zoning Commission
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
Published in the Aspen Times on October 31, 1998.
City of Aspen Account
ATTACHMENT 8-3
ALAF ALEXANDER R & FAHIMA
BOSSART TODD L
BROOKS JOHN A & LORRAINE M
E HYMAN AVE
814 W BLEEKER ST E4
720 W BLEEKER
PEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
y! r
ADY LINDSAY KEVIN
FORREST ST
SIVART HOLDINGS LTD
EPSTEIN MARC L REVOCABLE
'PERMINT GROVE
PARTNERSHIP
708 W BLEEKER ST
TRUST # 1
205 N 6TH ST
i 1 WESTERN AUTRALIA,
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO
✓ANAH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
VARIAN INN
DOLAN ANDREW C 50%
MANGHAM NANCY JANE
ES CENTURY PK E STE 1900
735 W BLEEKER
1709 DAKAR RD E
}> ANGELES, CA 90067
ASPEN, CO 81611
1
FT WORTH, TX
ANS GRAEME
'W
COULTER G LYNNIE
LONG RICHARD E & LOTS N
BLEEKER ST
PO BOX L3
PO BOX 1314
'EN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81612
JIDENIER DAVID & ELIZABETH S
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY
FELD ANNE S
SOUTHERN HILLS DR
ASPEN /SNOWMASS INC
/SNOMAIN
MOINES, IA 50321
734 W ST
1700 PACIFIC AVE STE 4100
ASPEN, CO 81611
DALLAS, TX 75201
1 INti LJ fMENTS LLC
HALLUM AUGUSTUS F & MARGERY
E MAIN
L
GOLDRICH MELINDA
EN, CO 81611
81
PO BOX 1188
706 W MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611
RSON MARK M & LEES M
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE SOCIETY
N MAIN ST
ASPEN/SNOWMASS INC
OLSHAN BURTON D I/2
-N, CO 81611
344 W MAIN ST
5408 OLD LEEDS RD
ASPEN, CO 81611
BIRMINGHAM, AL 35210
-LAN BURTON D 1/2
CITY OF ASPEN
AARONSON JEFFREY CRAIG
OLD LEEDS RD
130 S GALENA ST
PO BOX 10131
1INGHAM, AL 35210
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
IAN BURTON D 1/2
LEVIN WILLIAM A REVOCABLE
OLD LEEDS RD
LIVING TRUST
HAYES MARY E
IINGHAM, AL 35210
1 PENN PLZ STE 725
209 E BLEEKER ST
NEW YORK, NY
ASPEN, CO 81611
.,A- HERIE MATILDA
CROCKETT ANN R TRUSTEE OF THE
OLSHAN BURTON D 1/2
J M,- - ,4 ST #2 -
PRICE LIVING TRUST
OLSHAN KATHLEEN W 1/2
N, CO 81611
10898 MORA DR
5408 OLD LEEDS RD
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94024
BIRMINGHAM, AL 35210
r;LLER SCOTT
LUU TONG KHON
MORRIS CHARLES R JR
CIR
TRAN TUYET LE
ASPEN VILLAS MGM'T
.,'BARKLEY
RT MYERS, FL
PO BOX 2785
814 W BLEEKER
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611
►HEN RICHARD A
TOPELSON ALEJANDRO
D'ALESSIO ROBERT J
THEN ELIZABETH A
TOPELSON REBECA
D'ALESSIO JEAN M
BOX 1806
5300 DTC PKWY #400
814 W BLEEKER C-4
PEN, CO 81612
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111
ASPEN, CO 81611
IHAFFER WILLIAM H
MURRY PAUL J
!HAFFER KAREN W
MURRY BONITA J
UHLER FRANCES M
BRIXWORTH LN APT 7
814 W BLEEKER ST C-5
814 W BLEEKER
ESHVIL-LE, TN
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO
TAHI AMENEH
TRAN HONG HUONG
MANGONE PARTNERSHIP LP
BOX 8080
814 W BLEEKER ST #C 1
12687 W CEDAR DR # 100
PEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611
LAKEWOOD, CO 80228
NNESOTA MATERNAL
!TEL MEDICINE
LICHTENWALTER GARY R
HOGGATT JERRY S
.5 DWIGHT LN
350 HOUBOLT RD
PO BOX 1776
NNETONKA, MN 55305
JOLIET, IL
HARVEY, LA 70059
TCHE30N RICHARD L
' HEISLEY MICHAEL E
LW GIES - HEICO INC C/0
BAYOUD GEORGE S & JOAN
BOX 161930
STIN, TX
2075 FOXFIELD RD STE 102
3525 TURTLE CREEK BLVD
ST CHARLES, IL 60174
DALLAS, TX 75219
RTZ KENNETH T & KAREN
AKUR CUSTOM CABINETRY INC MCMANUS JAMES R LARNER JACQUELINE L
285 RIVERSIDE 376 DAHLIA
56 S RT 59 WESTPORT, CT 6880 DENVER, CO 80220
)REWOOD, IL 60435
�SLEY MICHAEL E SHAFER ROBERT C & ADRIAN C � K J LONG DORWORTH-
ASPEN HISTORICAL SOCIETY
4 DIANA DR 3554 QUEBEC ST NW 620 W BLEEKER ST
NDOTA, IL 61342 WASHINGTON, DC 20016 ASPEN, CO 81611
;INBERG EDWARD M MITTON JOSEPH & PATRICIA 1/2 INT DAILY KIMBERLY DAWN
8 HOLLY ST FRANKLE DAVID 1/2 INT 814 W BLEEKER PL E2
OVER, CO 80220 1015 VOLTZ RD ASPEN, CO 81611
NORTHBROOK, IL
EL 3USAN EICHNER SAMUEL L POLSE KENNETH A & JOYCE L
W bLcEKER ST - EICHNER SUSANA STERN DE REVOC 1992 TST
FUENTE PIRAMIDES 243 452 SCENIC AVE
EN, CO TECAMACHALCO MEXICO CITY, PIEDMONT, CA 94611
53950
TOMCICH WILLIAM WOOD HELENA ASPEN MTN RESCUE
PO BOX 1498 C/O AMBIANCE LTD 630 W MAIN ST
PO BOX 420315
ASPEN, CO DALLAS, TX 75342 ASPEN, CO 81611
CITY OF ASPEN RYANCO PARTNERS XXX 1 WEIEN J ROBERT
130 S GALENA ST 715 W MAIN ST STE 203 709 W MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611 ASPEN, CO 81611
ANSON WESTON T & SUSAN BAILEY
TRUSTEE OF
VILLARI JOHN TRUST
COSCARELLO ROBERT & ELIZABETH
ANSON FAMILY LIVING TRUST
PO BOX 2941
515 E LAS OLAS #800
PO BOX 8472
ASPEN, CO 81612
FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
LA JOLLA, CA
. YOUNG DONALD L
RUDOLPH RICHARD E
BERR LLC
617 W MAIN ST
PO BOX 3080
611 W MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81611
CAREFREE, AZ 85377
ASPEN, CO 81611
DUNSDON S MICHAELE
RUDOLPH RICHARD E
THROM ROBERT & PHYLISS 1/2 INT
BORKENHAGEN DAVID A
PO BOX 3080
THROM DOUGLAS 1/2 INT
PO BOX.2225
CAREFREE, AZ 85377
617 W MAIN ST
ASPEN, CO 81612
ASPEN, CO 81611
1-)UlvJDON S MICHAELE
IGLEHART JIM
KOELLE ALICE
617 W MAIN ST
610 W HALLAM ST
PO BOX 2871
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81611
ASPEN, CO 81612
KLEIN DEBBIE
A COLORADO CORPORATION
546 MCSKIMMING RD
ASPEN, CO 81611
APPLICANT: Lynnie Coulter, represented by Studio B Architects
LOCATION: 117 N. 6th Street
ACTION: Landmark Designation
To be eligible for landmark designation, a structure or site must meet two (2) or more
of the five (5) standards contained in Section 26.76.020 of the Municipal Code. It is
not the intention of HPC to landmark insignificant structures or sites. HPC will focus
on those which are unique or have some special value to the community.
Historical Importance: The structure or site is a principal or secondary
structure or site commonly identified or associated with a person or event of
historical significance to the cultural, social, or political history of Aspen,
the State of Colorado, or the United States.
Architectural Importance: The structure or site reflects an architectural style
that is unique, distinct, or of traditional Aspen character, or the structure or
site embodies the distinguishing characteristics of a significant or unique
architectural type (based on building form or use), or specimen.
Designer: The structure is a significant work of an architect or designer whose
individual work has influenced the character of Aspen.
Neighborhood Character: The structure or site is a significant component'of an
historically significant neighborhood and the preservation of the structure or site
is important for the maintenance of that neighborhood character.
Community Character: The structure or site is critical to the preservation of the
character of the Aspen community because of its relationship in terms of size,
location and architectural similarity to other structures or sites of historical or
architectural importance.
nf a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner
RE: Elden Stream Margin Review -- 727 Bay Street
DATE: November 17, 1998
SUMMARY:,
The applicant, Richard Elden represented by Glenn Horn, has applied for Stream
Margin Review for redevelopment of an existing duplex along the Roaring Fork
River in the Oklahoma Flats Subdivision.
The proposed development is within the 100-year floodplain for which this review
is required. The applicant is significantly remodeling the existing structure and
providing the majority of the "new" development on the non -river side of the
parcel.
The Commission recently reviewed and approved an Accessory Dwelling Unit
above the garage. That process did not require a Stream Margin Review.
Because the stream's edge varies, staff is suggesting the Commission record a site
plan showing the top -of -slope rather than stating a single elevation.
Staff recommends approval of this Stream Margin Review for the Elden
residence, with conditions.
APPLICANT:
Richard Elden. Represented by Glenn Horn, AICP.
LOCATION:
727 Bay Street (Oklahoma Flats).
ZONING:
. R-30. Low Density Residential.
LOT AREA FOR PURPOSES OF FAR):
12,206. As represented by applicant.
FLOOR AREA:
4,724 square feet.
1
CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE:
Duplex with an ADU above the garage.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission reviewed and approved an Accessory Dwelling Unit on this
property (Resolution No. 98-16). The Commission has not previously considered
a Stream Margin Review for this parcel.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
The Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or deny this application
at a meeting.
BACKGROUND:
The existing structure was constructed before the current requirements for Stream
Margin Review and does not have a prior approved top -of -slope and building
envelope. The applicant is not demolishing the structure, but is rather
significantly remodeling the duplex.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Review criteria and Staff Findings have been included as Exhibit "A." Agency
referral comments have been included as Exhibit "B." The application has been
included as Exhibit "C."
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this Stream
Margin Review for the Elden residence with the following conditions:
1. The Commission hereby approves the top -of -slope designation as represented on the site
plan. The building envelope shall be the area within a line 15 horizontal feet further from
the river than the top -of -slope and the required setbacks of the zone district on the remaining
sides of the lot.
2. There shall be recorded with this Resolution a site plan of the property delineating the
proposed site improvements, the top -of -slope, the building envelope, and a note stating "no
development other than approved native vegetation outside of the building envelope."
3. There shall be no development other than approved vegetation below, or within 15 feet of,
the top -of -slope. The existing development in this `no development zone' may be
maintained and remodeled but cannot be expanded. Any hot tub shall be drained through the
sanitary sewer and not to the river. Outdoor lighting shall be downcast and not directed
towards the river.
4. The development shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the R-30 Zone
District and within the building envelope designated with this review. The proposed
structure shall comply with all zoning and building requirements for a duplex and all
Federal, State, and Local requirements for building within the Floodplain.
5. The building permit plans shall show the width of the driveway no wider than 18 feet and
shall designate one parking space for the ADU.
6. The building permit application shall include a current signed and stamped site improvement
survey and an Elevation Certificate prepared by a registered Engineer.
PA
7. Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record a "fisherman's easement"
to allow fishing access along the edge of the Roaring Fork River.
8. The building permit application shall include a drainage report and a drainage plan,
including a erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which
maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. For the ground recharge
system, a soil percolation report and consideration of the ground water levels are required to
correctly size the facility. A 2 year storm frequency should be used in designing the
drainage improvements.
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall erect silt fencing approximately
along the top -of -slope and around existing tree driplines. This fencing shall remain in place
until issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
10. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of
constructing improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula.
11. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the
applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for
pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement
survey. Revisions to utility locations and easements must be delineated on a revised site
improvement survey prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Meter locations must be
accessible for reading and may not be obstructed.
12. A tree removal permit from the City Parks Department is required for the removal or relocation
of trees.
13. The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights -of -way from the
appropriate City Department. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a mailbox and
landscaping from the City Streets Department.,
14. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is limited to the
hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
15. The applicant shall maintain construction materials and debris on -site and not within public
rights -of -way.
16. Before applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning
Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza
Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee
to the City Clerk who will record the resolution.
17. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the Elden Stream Margin Review with the conditions outlined
in the Community Development Department memo dated November 17, 1998."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Referral Agency Comments
Exhibit C -- Application
Q
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT
OF THE ELDEN DUPLEX, 727 BAY STREET, LOTS 79 89 & 9, BLOCK 2,
OKLAHOMA FLATS ADDITION, CITY OF ASPEN.
Parcel No. 2737-073-11-002
Resolution #98 - Z 5
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Richard Elden, owner and applicant, for Stream Margin Review for redeveloping an
existing duplex located adjacent to the Roaring Fork River at 727 Bay Street, Lots 7, 8, &
9, Block 2, Oklahoma Flats Addition; and,
WHEREAS, the parcel is approximately 13,410 square feet and located in the
Low Density Residential (R-30) Zone District; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.68.040, Stream Margin Review, of the
Aspen Municipal Code, development adjacent to the Roaring Fork River may be
approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, the Fire Marshall, Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, City
Engineering, Parks Department, and the Community Development Department reviewed
the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and,
WHEREAS, attached to this Resolution is a site plan representing the top -of -
slope and building envelope designations for this property as approved by the Planning
and Zoning Commission; and,
WHEREAS, during a public hearing at a regular meeting on November 17, 1998,
the Planning and Zoning Commission approved by a to vote the Stream Margin
Review for the Elden Duplex, 727 Bay Street, with the conditions recommended by'the
Community Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Stream Margin Review for the Elden Duplex is approved with the following
conditions:
1. The Commission hereby approves the top -of -slope designation as represented on the site
plan. The building envelope shall be the area within a line 15 horizontal feet further from
the river than the top -of -slope and the required setbacks of the zone district on the remaining
sides of the lot.
2. There shall be recorded with this Resolution a site plan of the property delineating the
proposed site improvements, the top -of -slope, the building envelope, and a note stating "no
development other than approved native vegetation outside of the building envelope."
3. There shall be no development other than approved vegetation below, or within 15 feet of,
the top -of -slope. The existing development in this `no development zone' may be
maintained and remodeled but cannot be expanded. Any hot tub shall be drained through the
sanitary sewer and not to the river. Outdoor lighting shall be downcast and not directed
towards the river.
4. The development shall be located within the dimensional requirements of the R-30 Zone
District and within the building envelope designated with this review. The proposed
structure shall comply with all zoning and building requirements for a duplex and all
Federal, State, and Local requirements for building within the Floodplain.
5. The building permit plans shall show the width of the driveway no wider than 18 feet and
shall designate one parking space for the ADU.
6. The building permit application shall include a current signed and stamped site improvement
survey and an Elevation Certificate prepared by a registered Engineer.
7. Prior to applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record a "fisherman's easement"
to allow fishing access along the edge of the Roaring Fork River.
8. The building permit application shall include a drainage report and a drainage plan,
including a erosion control plan, prepared by a Colorado licensed Civil Engineer, which
maintains sediment and debris on -site during and after construction. For the ground recharge
system, a soil percolation report and consideration of the ground water levels are required to
correctly size the facility. A 2 year storm frequency should be used in designing the
drainage improvements.
9. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall erect silt fencing approximately
along the top -of -slope and around existing tree driplines. This fencing shall remain in place
until issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
10. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of
constructing improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula.
11. All utility meters and any new utility pedestals or transformers must be installed on the
applicant's property and not in any public right-of-way. Easements must be provided for
pedestals. All utility locations and easements must be delineated on the site improvement
survey. Revisions to utility locations and easements must -be delineated on a revised site
improvement survey prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Meter locations must be
accessible for reading and may not be obstructed.
12. A tree removal permit from the City Parks Department is required for the removal or relocation
of trees.
13. The applicant must receive approval for any work within public rights -of -way from the
appropriate City Department.. This includes, but is not limited to, approval for a mailbox and
landscaping from the City Streets Department.
14. The applicant shall abide by all noise ordinances. Construction activity is. limited to the
hours between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m.
15. The applicant shall maintain construction materials and debris on -site and not within public
rights -of -way.
16. Before applying for a building permit, the applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning
Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza
Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee
to the City Clerk who will record the resolution.
17. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on November 17, 1998.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
Sara Garton, Chair
Exhibit A
Elden Stream Margin
STAFF COMMENTS: Stream Margin
Section 26.68.040, Standards Applicable to Development within 100 feet of the Roaring
Fork River and its tributary streams.
A. No development shall be permitted in the floodway, with the exception of bridges or
structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, which may be permitted
by the City Engineer, provided plans and specifications are submitted to demonstrate that
the structure is engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows and
the Commission determines the proposed structure complies, to the extent practical, with all
standards set forth below.
Staff Finding:
No development is proposed within the floodway.
B. No development shall be permitted within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally,
from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the
Special Flood Hazard Area where it extends beyond 100 feet from the high water line of the
Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a determination
that the proposed development complies with all standards 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 in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood
elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposed mitigation techniques on
or off -site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the
development;
Staff Finding:
The applicant has submitted an Elevation Certificate prepared by an Engineer. The City
Engineer has reviewed this report and agrees that the base flood elevation will not be
significantly raised by this development. The original Floodplain Certificate will need to be
submitted with the building permit application.
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Community Plan,
Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan Map, or areas of historic public use or access are
dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. Dedications are necessitated by
development's increased impacts to the City's recreation and _trail facilities including public
fishing access;
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed
plan for development, to the greatest extent practical;
staff comments page 1
Staff Finding:
The Trails plan does not describe a trail on this property. The Greenway Plan requires a
"fisherman's easement" along the edge of the Roaring Fork River. The Commission should
require compliance with this Greenway Plan'by requiring a fisherman's easement along the
river bank.
4. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut/fill) made outside
of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this
review and said 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 of
Occupancy;
Staff Finding:
Because the property has not gone through a Stream Margin Review in the past, a building
envelope has not been designated for this property. This envelope should now be
designated as the area within the zoning setbacks on the three non -river sides of the lot and
the line 15 feet back from the top -of -slope. A map showing the building envelope should
be recorded with this Resolution.
Barricading the river edge of the property will be necessary with this development.
5. 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. Pool or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated
building envelope;
Staff Finding:
The building permit application must contain a drainage plan with any necessary mitigation
detailed. Any hot tub should be drained to the sanitary sewer and not to the river.
6. Written notice shall be provided 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;
7. 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:
The development proposed will not interfere with the watercourse.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits related to the work within the
100-year floodplain; and
staff comments page 2
Staff Finding:
The applicant has stated that all necessary permits will be obtained for a building permit.
The applicant should consult with the City Engineer concerning these requirements.
Typically, all new construction must restrict all habitable space to two feet above the 100
year flood level.
9. 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. If any development is essential within this area, it may only be approved by special
review pursuant to Section 26.64.040(D)
Staff Finding:
The applicant is not proposing new development within this no -development zone. Staff
has included conditions of approval requiring conformance with this standard. Staff has
suggested a site plan be recorded with the Commission Resolution to show the extent of the
setback requirement.
10. All development outside of 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.
Staff Finding:
There are some existing encroachments (non -conformities) into the progressive height limit.
This encroachment may be maintained with remodeling (as opposed to demolition) but
cannot be increased.
11. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications.
Staff Finding: .
A landscape plan has been submitted with this amendment. There are a few trees proposed
for relocation and additional vegetation outside the building envelope and along the river.
The Parks Department has reviewed this landscape plan and is recommending approval.
The additional plantings close to the river are native species.
12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no lights directed toward the river or located
down the slope;
Staff Finding:
The applicant has agreed to this standard and staff has included this as a condition.
13. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer are submitted
showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top -of -slope, and pertinent elevation
above sea level.
staff comments page 3
Staff Finding:
The Commission, not staff nor the City Engineer, is responsible for establishing the top -of -
slope for Stream Margin Review. Staff and the City Engineer are recommending bodies
only in this process.
This site does not have a distinct break in the terrain as some more obvious cases in the
past. It is still more noticeable than others. It appears that elevation 7875 represents a break
in the terrain on the eastern parcel boundary. On the western side, elevation 7870 looks to
provide a clear break. Staff is not recommending a single elevation be used for this parcel
but rather a map showing the boundary line as it responds to the changing topography. For
this reason, it is important for a map to be recorded with the Commission Resolution.
Staff would like to propose a map at the meeting which combines the recommendations of
the City Engineer and the Planning Department for the Commission to consider.
14. There has been accurate identification of wetland and riparian areas.
Staff Finding:
There has been. Included in the application is a report by an environmental consultant
which states the lack of wetlands on the property.
staff comments page 4
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer
ZA .
From: Chuck Roth, Project Engineer 6`71r,
Date: October 28, 1998
Re: . Elden Stream Margin Review
The Development Review Committee has reviewed the above referenced application at their October 21,
1998 meeting, and we have the following comments:
1. Improvement Survey - The application is incomplete because there is no improvement survey.
2. Stream Margin Plat -
a. The property must be fully monumented.
b. Show the top of slope line. It is not a constant elevation line. The elevation of the top of slope
decreases downstream. At a minimum, three cross sections are needed at the following points:
(1) & (2) At each end of the property (corners) abutting the slope; (3) One at the mid -point of the
bank along the property line. Also indicate the 15' setback line from the top of slope line and at
all points listed above.
c. Revise the plat note concerning base flood elevation. The base flood elevation is not constant
across the property. Indicate the maximum elevation. The flood elevation indicated on the draft
plat is inconsistent with the engineer's drainage report.
d. The following statement must appear on the plat: "All easements of record are declared in the
indicated Title Policy No. , dated [within past 12 months] and are shown
hereon."
e. No basement or habitable space is permitted beneath the structure.
f. Utility tie-ins must be floodproofed.
3. "Schematic Design" Sheet - For the building permit, this sheet should probably be re -titled
"Landscape Plan" or "Site Plan". In any case, there is misleading information on the sheet. The 25' space
indicated as an easement is not an easement according to the information on the surveyor's sheet. It
appears to be the parking area. And a 10' area also indicated as an easement appears to be a setback line.
4. Floodplain - The original, completed floodplain elevation certificate for the project must be submitted
with the building permit application. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant must
provide a floodplain elevation certificate for the .improvements as constructed and recording fees. This
elevation must be adhered to and not altered at any time.
5. Driveway & Parking - City Code specifies a maximum driveway width of 18'. This must be shown
on the site development plan as well as the parking spaces.
6. Site Drainage - The drainage report needs to be amended to make reference to anticipated ground
water levels at the time of the design event in order to confirm that the drywell storage volume is
available. Also, the percolation rate needs to be reported if percolation is factored into the drywell size, or
a statement needs to be included if the percolation rate is not a factor.
The building permit drawings must indicate that runoff during construction will be maintained on
the site and not permitted to drain to the river or to Bay Street.
7. Parks Department - The building permit drawings must indicate construction fencing around tree
driplines.
8. Fire Marshal - A sprinkler system for fire protection purposes is required if the building interior
exceeds 5,000 square feet. The final determination will occur when the square footages are determined
following City Code requirements.
9. Work in the Public Right-of-way - Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way adjacent to private property, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant must receive approval from city engineering (920-5080) for design of
improvements, including landscaping, within public rights -of -way, parks department (920-5120) for
vegetation species and for public trail disturbance, and streets department (920-5130) for mailboxes ,
street and alley cuts, and shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within
public rights-of=way from the city community development department.
DRC Attendees
Staff: Chris Bendon, Sarah Oates, John Krueger, Chuck Roth
Applicant's representative: Glenn Horn
98M185
Memorandum
City of Aspen
City Attorney-* off -ice
Planning and Zoning Commission, Mayor, and Members of Coun
cil
FROM: City Manager
City Attorney's Office
Community Development Office y
DATE: November 12,1998 91
RE: Re -codification of the Land Use Code
0000000*0***0000000*000*000000000000**00*000000000*00000000000*000
Please find enclosed a draft copy of the Aspen Land Use Code whic effort to simplify it and make it more "user-friendly."h has been re -codified in an
and Zoning Commission and the City Council to review Staff would like to meet with the Planning
you a background, reasons for suggesting a re -codification his effort. This memo is intended to give
of the Land Use Code, and to explain the
proposed changes that are reflected in the draft document,
Background: We have all heard the complaints from citizens that too complicated, hard to read, cumbersome to use, unintelligible, contradictory,
Aspen Land Use Code is
have also heard that the procedures and processes set forth in. theadlctory, and too long. We
development approvals are too cumbersome, contradictoryand unclear, Land Use Code to obtain
counterproductive, and simply take too long to complete.
expensive to follow,
City Council has, for a number of years, asked staff to
simplify
Identified as a high priority for Council since 1995 when it budge
the code. This goal has been ed $10,000.00 for the 1996 fiscal
year to here an outside consultant to help work on the project. For
of which was the big task involved in re -codification, it has taken to ff as1ety of reasons, not the least
point. on, over two years to get to this
Jed Caswall, the former Aspen City Attorney, was retained to review Prioritize areas that needed to be changed, survey current users of the Code to identify reasons for
he entire Land Use Code,
the current dissatisfaction with the Code, and to suggest ways to simplify a public meeting was held with a number of land use planners architects, cts, and other users of the the Code. In March, 1996,
Code to elicit comments on ways to improve the Code. At that �meeting
were reached which helped guide the work of re -codification. The inosta number of conclusions
order of importance) were asfollows: portant points (not in any
* The Code is complicated for two basic reasons: (a) it is extremely difficult to read;
d b the procedures required for development approval are too complex and cumbersome. The
an ()
solution to the first problem is simply to reformat the Code, combine sections, re -write confusing ae it
conflictingsections, re -organize the chapters and sections, add a good index, and generally to the
more understandable. The solution to the second problem is to make substantive changes
Code to simplify the process and procedures required of applicants.
The Code should continue to be written with professionals in mind. The Code can
be written so that it can be understood, but must function as a "land use code" which J necessarily
introduces jargon on and legal concepts, procedures, and regulations that are not part of h understand the
g
citizens' daily life. If a document needs to be written so the average citizen can un
process, it should be a separate document written specifically with that audience in mind.
The reason the Code is so complicated with respect to process and procedures of
thap t As en unlike most municipalities its size, has decided to regulate a significant number o
owth
issues. Few communities the size of Aspen have regulations for historic preservation, ervoatig g tuber
management, environmentally sensitive areas (8040 green line, stream margin, o), districts), and
g
of regulations relating to development mitigation (affordable housing, parks, school zone districts that
g
design review. Few, if any, communities the size of Aspen have the number o districts in Aspen, not
are defined in the Land Use Code. (There are twenty-eight zone or overlay distr merit alone.)
counting SPA's, PUD's, and historical overlay districts! Ten for residential p
The initial focus of any attempt to simplify the Code should try to avoid making
substantive changes. Combining proposed changes that merely make the Code user-friendlydebate the
sub gAspen
substantive changes will hold up the effort while all the stakeholders in the Code simpler,the
proposed
merits of the substantive changes. Identify substantive changes that would make easier to read and
but start with as many non -controversial changes as possible. Once the Code at s time, is necessary.
understand, then a commitment to make important substantive changes,
interest one
groups to oppose various
A wholesale effort to substantively change the Code will cause existing-Code.Most people simply
changes, or the final product will be more complicated than theread in its present form.
do not understand the Code today because it cannot be comprehensively
All land use codes need to be re -codified ,(and re -written) periodically. Any set of
laws or a code that is constantly updated, amended, and revised needs to be reviewed in irat di eto
ty
As amendments are proposed and adopted, few of them get properly
induplicative dinto
periodically.
the existing code. This leads to confusing and conflicting regulations and
one who tried
language and sections, a lack of proper cross referencing, and a worthless
to read the state's uniform election code before its recent re -codification will understand the
problem.
Chan es to the format of the Code: The first reaction that everyone who opens the proposed dre-
codified Code should have is that it looks different. It has the appearance of being will note that
in
some logical fashion and individual sections and paragraphs can be easily read.e and subsections
g
the re -codified Code uses bold, underlined, and italic letters. Paragraphs,sections,
cbut a reference to the
are indented in outline form. Each page contains not onlWaa page ed (to help keep the Code book
Code section printed on the page, and the date the page were reduced to simple mathematical
current). Whole paragraphs of incomprehensible
2
equations or drawings. These were simple, albeit tedious, changes which make finding and reading
the appropriate regulations immeasurably easier than our current Code. These changes alone should
go a long way to address the complaints about our current Code being too difficult to read and
understand.
The next major formatting change was the re -organization of the Code. You will note that the Code
has been separated into seven "Parts." Each Part of the Code attempts to gather different chapters
and sections of the Code into logical groupings. Not a very innovative concept, but one that is
nonetheless lacking in our current Code. (The Housing Replacement ordinance, for instance, is not
even in the Land Use Code. It was codified in a totally separate Chapter of the Municipal Code.) As
important as an index is, a new user of the Land Use Code should be able to find what they are
looking for by reading through the Table of Contents. Chapters within each Part have been
organized similarly. Thus, for example, Part 300 which sets forth various chapters on General
Procedures and Regulations, starts with regulations of general applicability, followed by regulations
that may affect all development applications, and then those regulations of general applicability, but
of specific interest. Much of the time involved in producing this draft of the re -codified Code was
spent reorganizing paragraphs, sections, and chapters by moving them around to more logical Parts
and Chapters of the Code.
Highlight of proposed changes to the Code. This section of the memo attempts to point out the
major changes made to the language of the Code. Pointing out all the changes would be next to
impossible without writing a treatise as long as the Code itself. Each chapter of our existing Code
has been saved showing the changes made to them with highlighted text or stfikethet b�characters:
These chapters are available upon request to anyone that is interested in seeing the actual changes.
Most of the proposed changes to the Code are not substantive. Those that are substantive are
pointed out below. Substantive changes that staff has identified as advisable, but which are not
included -in this current draft are discussed at the end of this memo. The substantive changes that
are in the current draft are being proposed either because they could not be avoided, or are not
considered controversial. Those that could not be avoided are generally those that were needed to
implement past Code interpretations of the Community Development Department Director in
accordance with his/her responsibilities to do so under the Code, those that were needed to correct
conflicting language in the Code, those that implement the clear intent of the existing Code, or
changes to process and procedures which improve and simplify the process. Again, this memo
attempts to highlight these changes below.
Part 100 — General Provisions:
This part of the Code has been almost entirely re -written, particularly the definitions contained in
Section 26.104.100. Most of the existing terms were re -written in their entirety, new terms were
added, and others were deleted (there are a number of terms defined in the existing Code which do
not appear anywhere else in the Code). A good deal of time and attention was given to this section
in the re -codification since this section of the current Code is the source of much of the confusion in
trying to understand the Code. Many of the existing definitions contain substantive regulatory
provisions which do not belong in a definitions section. That is, users of a code do not normally
turn to a definitions section to find regulatory language. Only those readers that know regulatory
language can be found in the definitions section are likely to turn to that section. In essence, the
3
definitions section was used in the past as a "dumping ground" for substantive regulatory language
that didn't seem to fit elsewhere in the Code.
In the draft re -codification, all regulatory language was removed from the definitions section and
replaced in the appropriate section within the Code that deals with the subject matter or in the
"Supplementary Regulations" section (Part 500).
The following terms were added to the Definitions section of the proposed Code: Accessory
structures or buildings, Affordable Housing Guidelines, Aspen Area Community Plan, Aspen
Metropolitan Area, bathroom, category housing, child care center, partial demolition, dish antenna,
eave point, essential public facility, flood hazard area, flooding, finished grade, historic
significance, long term, nonconforming lot or parcel, plat, principal building, reconstruction,
recreational vehicle, rehabilitation, relocation, renovate, residential multi -family housing, opened
street, private street, public street, unopened street, and townhouse.
Other changes relating to definitions result from the attempt throughout the new Code to make
reference to the Affordable Housing Guidelines instead of either restating a regulation in the Land
Use Code or defining terms and methods of calculations that should more properly be included in
the AH Guidelines, as amended from time to time. For example, the definition of a "working
resident" has been taken out of the Code and the reader is referred to the AH Guidelines. The added
advantage of this effort is that the City Council and the BOCC will have an opportunity to review
these definitions, methods, and regulations as part of their annual review of the AH Guidelines and
to ensure that the City and County regulations for affordable housing is consistent in the
metropolitan area without having to continuously and simultaneously amend all relevant portions of
the Land Use Code.
Another major change in the proposed Code is the elimination of "exterior and interior FAR." The
difference between these two different methods for calculating FAR has been fairly small.
Anyone attempting to compare the existing Code definitions with the proposed definitions should
read the new definitions together with Chapter 26.575, "Miscellaneous Supplemental Regulations"
in order to fully understand the changes being proposed.
Part 200 — Administration — Decision Making Bodies
Not too many changes were made to the chapters of this part. Some of the duties of the decision -
making bodies were amended to reflect changes made over the years in the Code, but never
codified in this part.
Part 300 — General Procedures and Regulations.
This section of the proposed Code received significant attention and time. The attempt in
recodifying this Part was to make uniform the general procedures that apply to all development
applications, to simplify and clarify the language used to describe the general procedures, and to re-
write the Part in a more logical sequence. It is this Part in the existing Code which has caused the
most confusion and complaints about conflicting requirements, onerous and redundant procedural
requirements, and lack of clarity.
4
Chapter 26.304 has been almost entirely re -written. Duties of the Community Development
Department, the applicant, and decision -making bodies are spelled out much more clearly. Included
in this chapter is a description of the usual steps required of all applicants from the time they file an
application to the time they receive a development order (and are eligible to apply for a building
permit).
Section 26.304.060(B)(1) was added to grant the Community Development Director authority to
alter the usual review procedures when appropriate. The operative language is that the Director may
modify the procedures for reviewing development plans and applications to combine or modify
such procedures where more than one development approval is being sought simultaneously and
such "modification or combination would eliminate or reduce duplication and ensure economy of
time, expense and clarity." All public noticing requirements for combined or modified procedures
would still be required as if a full review procedure was being followed.
Section 26.304.060(B)(2) was also added provide greater flexibility in the approval process. This
section authorizes the Community Development Director to schedule a "sketch plan review" with
any combination of boards and the City Council either before or after an application for land use
approval is submitted. The idea here is to allow various boards and commissions and the City
Council to schedule a new type of meeting with the applicant and interested members of the public
to review an application before it gets too far into our normal development review process. This
new meeting may be very useful in reviewing complex or potentially controversial projects, or
projects which one can anticipate will .generate a lot of community interest. The sketch plan review,
if it is suggested by the Community Development Director, would have to take place before any
other formal review steps are taken on the application, would require full public notice, and the
record of the proceedings would become part of the formal record of the application review process.
At the conclusion of a sketch plan review, everyone in attendance would be given an opportunity to
discuss the proposed project application with the applicant, but no formal decisions by any decision
makers would be allowed.
Chapter 26.308 and other portions of the Code relating to "vested rights" has been rewritten for
enhanced clarity. A major substantive change is the fact that the proposed Code would enable
practically all development approvals to automatically receive a vested right. No longer will an
applicant be required to apply for vested rights and thereafter proceed under a different set of
procedures to formalize the vested rights. The trade-off for this automatic receipt of vested rights is
that all applications for development that are entitled to vested rights would be required to follow
certain procedural steps to perfect the vested rights. (All resolutions and ordinances would be
required to contain the "magic words" that create vested rights, all resolutions and ordinances
would need to be published by the City Clerk in accordance with the state statute relating to vested
rights, and applicants would receive a formal "development order" spelling out their rights.) None
of these additional steps or requirements should be significantly noticeable to applicants. In
addition, this Chapter sets forth regulations and standards for extension and exemptions from the
expiration of development orders.
Chapter 26.310 — Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map has been
simplified and the procedures clarified. The main substantive change to this Chapter is the addition
of Section 26.310.020(C) which authorizes the City Council to adopt amendments to the Code by
emergency ordinance when it is deemed appropriate. The existing Code ignores this basic City
Council power set forth in the City Charter. By adding this section, the Code makes clear that the
5
City Council may adopt emergency ordinances, even when they amend the Land Use Code.
Another major change is Section 26.310.05 which spells out in greater detail the "pending
ordinance doctrine" which has been the source of some confusion in the past.
Chapter 26.314 — "Variances," was amended to allow the HPC or the P&Z to grant variances, but
only when the Community Development Director authorizes such action because an application
will be reviewed by one of those bodies as part of a consolidated application process. Thus, for
example, if an application is to be reviewed by the P&Z for a stream margin review the Community
Development Director may authorize the P&Z to review a variance request at the same time and
avoid having the application reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. In that the BoA may have
particular expertise in these matters, applicants may appeal an adverse variance decision by the
P&Z to the BoA.
Chapter 26.316 — "Appeals," was re -written to clarify and make uniform all the various appeal
provisions of the existing Code. In this fashion, any person desiring to appeal an administrative
decision can quickly refer to a single section of the Code for the proper procedure. The procedures
for differing appeals was also made uniform.
Part 400 — Development Review Standards and Procedures. This section of the re -codified
Code contains all the procedures and standards of review specific to particular applications for
development. Each Chapter has been re -written to eliminate conflicting language, to clarify the
requisite procedures, and whenever possible, to make uniform the procedures required.
Chapter 26.410 — "Residential Design Standards" has not been significantly changed as that chapter
is currently under review by staff and the P&Z for amendments.
Chapters 26.415 and 420 — "Historic Preservation," were completely rewritten to clarify and
simplify the procedures and language. The final hearing before the HPC for any significant
development, including demolition or partial demolition, will require notice by publication, posting
and mailing to neighbors. In addition, new language was added to ensure City Council is notified of
HPC actions prior to the expiration of the appeal period.
Chapter 26.435 — "Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas" was re -written to clarify the
procedures, and to include the substantive review standards for each type of development within
this Chapter (mountain plane views, Hallam Lake, stream margin, and 8040). The current
requirement that property owners dedicate a trail easement to the City as a condition of approval for
a stream margin review has been deleted as it is legally indefensible in most cases.
Chapter 26.470 — "GMQS" has been completely re -written, but no major substantive changes have
been made. This chapter is a consolidated version of two separate chapters in our current Code:
residential GMQS and Commercial GMQS. There really is no reason to have these separated. It
merely adds redundant language to the Code, and leads to confusion as to the different requirements
of the chapters according to whether the development is residential or commercial.
Chapter 26.480 — "Subdivisions" was re -written and major sections relating to Engineering
standards were eliminated. The Engineering standards, which have little relevance to most
development applications in the City, have been moved to a separate Chapter devoted entirely to
these Engineering Department standards and procedures. (See Chapter 26.580 — Supplementary
6
Regulations — Engineering Department.) Section 26.480.090 was revised significantly to make the
Code conform to the state's condominiumization statutes.
Part 500 — Supplementary Regulations. This part of the proposed Code includes a consolidation
of existing supplementary regulations, regulatory language deleted from many of the definitions in
the existing Code, regulatory language deleted from the zoning districts, and miscellaneous
regulations found throughout the existing Code. By combining and consolidating much of the
regulatory language now found throughout various sections and chapters in our existing Code, it
will be possible to do "one stop shopping" for answers. For example, a reader of our current Code
must read multiple sections of the existing Code (if s/he can find them) to get answers relating to
accessory dwelling units, parking requirements, and affordable housing mitigation requirements.
Hopefully, the proposed Code will eliminate this problem by consolidating all of these subjects
under proper chapters and sections.
Please note that "Off-street parking requirements," "affordable housing," "accessory dwelling
units," and the "resident multi -family replacement program," can now be found in their own
chapters or sections of the Code.
Chapter 26.575 — "Miscellaneous Supplementary Regulations" contain a number of new sections.
These sections were created primarily to combine regulatory language found throughout our.
existing Code and to locate them in one simple -to -find chapter.
Part 600 — Impact Fees and Dedications. The Park and School Lands dedication sections were
consolidated into this separate part for ease of use. The affordable housing impact fee section found
in the existing Code has been deleted. The fee structure and methodology for calculating the
affordable housing impact fee will be inserted in the Affordable Housing Guidelines. It was felt by
staff that this makes sense as so many other substantive provisions are now being proposed to be
located in the AH Guidelines. The added advantage beside a "one stop" place to find All
regulations is that this will provide the City Council and the BOCC an opportunity to review these
regulations on an annual basis as part of the annual review of the AH Guidelines.
The Park Development impact fee was amended to include the potential for affordable
housing and historic landmarked properties to be exempt from the fees. The current code allows the
City Council to waive the fees if it wishes to help subsidize an AH project or to provide an
additional incentive for historic landmarking.
Part 700 — Zone Districts. Although staff was tempted to make many changes to this part of the
Code, no major substantive changes are proposed at this time. Most of the changes proposed are
attempts to make this part of the code easier to read. As mentioned above, regulatory language
found in the existing zone district chapters were moved and consolidated in the "Supplementary
Regulations" Chapter of the Code. Many of the dimensional requirement charts contained in the
existing Code are duplicative of other charts found in prior sections of the Code. Whenever
possible, these charts were deleted and cross referenced to identical charts found earlier in the Code.
This eliminates many pages and helps to clarify the Code requirements.
The requirements for the AH/PUD zone district were greatly simplified. The 70% affordable
housing requirement was clarified by specifically stating that the 70% figure refers to the project's
total bedrooms as opposed to units. The category mix that is required will be set forth in the
Affordable Housing Guidelines.
Additional Substantive Changes suggested for future action.
There are a number of substantive changes to the Code which staff, P&Z, and the City Council have
discussed in recent months. Some of these amendments should provide additional opportunities for
simplifying the Code. In addition, as staff and the public work with a re -codified version of the
Code, other changes which are identified that would simplify either regulatory language or
procedures, will be brought to Council for consideration. Such presumably minor changes to the
Code will be much easier to propose as it will be much easier for staff to review and analyze all
such proposals. Part of the problem in the recent past has been a reluctance by anyone to change the
existing Code for fear that a small change in one part of the Code would have unforeseen
consequences to other sections. There has also been the feeling that since the Code has been
scheduled for a major re -codification, minor changes could wait.
Following is a list of amendments to Code provisions that are currently under active consideration
or which staff would like to propose in the near future:
* Accessory dwelling units.
* Affordable housing mitigation standards
* Growth Management Quota System
* Store size limitations (awaiting second reading by Council)
* Historic preservation program
* Design Review Standards
* Takings determination standards and procedures
* Consolidate the SPA and PUD chapters of the Code.
* Lodge Preservation amendments.
* Procedures for Community Development Director exemptions for review in ESA
areas.
* Outdoor lighting regulations
* Any changes or amendments required following adoption of new AACP
Conclusion. The re -codification of the Code that is being proposed should go a long way to
satisfy critics of our current Code. The formatting changes alone should make the Code easier to
use and read. The many re -writes that occurred to whole chapters of the Code should help make the
Code easier to understand and implement in a consistent and fair fashion. The proposed changes to
review procedures should help streamline application reviews by staff and decision -making bodies
and eliminate due process errors. There is a continuing commitment by staff to continue finding
ways to simplify the Code whenever possible. By adopting the proposed re -codified Code, future
amendments to simplify the Code will be easier to identify and recommend to Council.
Accordingly, this effort should be viewed as a necessary first step. The City's land use code will
never be "simple," but it should not be needlessly cumbersome, confusing, and conflicting.
In its continuing effort to make the Code user friendly to non-professionals that occasionally delve
into land use planning issues, the Community Development Department will undertake to write and
make available educational brochures that explain the more complicated areas of our land use code.
8
If anyone has a question regarding the Proposed re -
any meeting scheduled to discuss the pro osed codification of the Code before, during, or after
anyone In the Co p amendments, please do not hesitate to contact
mmunity Development Department or the City Attorne 's Of
fice.
ffice.
JPW-11/12/98-M:\city\cityatty\land-use\final \memo.doc
Section 26.480.010
part 400 — Development Review Standards and Procedures
a. providing one
free market dwelling unit and one deed restricted, residen d
' d dwellin unit with a minimum floor area of one thousand live und
reoccupie g
(1,500) square feet;
units and one accessory dwelling unit with a
b, providing two free market dwelling
600) square feet;
minimum floor area of six hundred
C. providing rovidin two deed restricted, resident -occupied dwelling units; or
d, paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee.
C. Historic Landmark Lot Split. Th
e construction of a new single-family dwelling on a lot
created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to Section 26.480.030(E)• This
exemption shall not be
deducted from the respective annual development allotments
established pursuant to Section 26.470.040 or from the Aspen Metro Area development the
ceilings es
tablished pursuant to Section 26.470.030. Exemption review
Community Development Director.
D. Historic landmarks.
1 Chanbo
Qe of use. The change
of use of an historic landmark that does not increase the
buildings existing floor area ratio shall be exempt. This exemption shall n Metrc
respective annual development allotments or from the Aspen
deducted from the p
ent. Exemption review is by the Community Development
Area development. P
2. Enlar ements or additional
dwellin and tourist accommodations units. The
' on a maximum cumulative basis.
enlargement of an historic landmark that develops,
bed and breakfast,
(a) not m
ore than one residential dwelling or three hotel, lodge,
shall be deducted
boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units. T and his xe fromtheAspen Metro Area
from the respective annual development allotments nit Development Director.
development. Exemption review is by the Community
(b) more than one resident
ial dwelling or more than three (3) hotel, motel, lodge bed
ted.
and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory or units shall be exe p
from Aspen Metro Area
This exemption is not deducted from annual allotmenin�ssion. The applicant shall
ceilings. Review is by Growth Management omitigation anon of the project's
demonstrate that as a result of the development, dards set forth at sub -Section 5,
community impacts will be addressed by the
below.
3.
Enlar ement or use as a commercial or o ice develo ment.
Revised 01/01/99
Page - 193
�:.., _f ecr,en land Use Code
% .
26.100.050
(d) paying the applicable affordable housing impact fee.
d. All development not classified as "tourist accommodations," "residential" or "commercial and office"
development. All development not limited by the provision of Section 26.100.040 shall be exempt from the
growth management competition and scoring procedures.
e. Historic Landmark Lot Split. The construction of a new single-family dwelling on a lot created
through a Historic Landmark Lot Split pursuant to section 26.88.030(A)(5).
E
3. Community Development Director exemptions that are deducted from the pool of annual development
allotments and from the metro area development ceilings. The enlargement of an historic landmark that develops,
i
on a maximum cumulative basis, not more than one residential dwelling or three hotel, lodge, bed and breakfast,
boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units. Although exempt from competition, units exempted by the
Community Development Director pursuant to this section shall be deducted from the respective annual
development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.100.040 and from the metro area development ceilings
established pursuant to Section 26.100.030.
B. Exemption by Growth Management Commission.
1. General.
a. Application for exemption. No development shall be considered for an exemption by the Growth
Management Commission until a completed application for exemption has been submitted to the Community
Development Director.
b. Procedure. After the Community Development Director has determined that the application for exemption
is complete, pursuant to Section 26.52.050, the application shall be forwarded to the Growth Management
commission for review and consideration at a hearing, for which notice has been given pursuant to Section
26.52.060(E)(3)(a). After considering the request, the Growth Management Commission shall approve, approve
with conditions or deny the application for exemption, based on the application's compliance with all applicable
standards. In the event that there are insufficient allotments available to accommodate all applications for exempt
development, a random drawing shall be held in accordance with the standards of Section 26.100.060(B).
2. Growth Management Commission exemptions that are not deducted from the pool of annual development
allotments or from the metro area development ceilings. The following exemptions shall not be deducted from
the respective annual development allotment established pursuant to Section 26.100.040 or from the metro
area development ceilings established pursuant to Section 26.100.030.
a. Historic landmarks.
(1) Exempt development.
(a) Enlargements for additional dwelling and tourist accommodations units. The enlargement of an
historic landmark that develops more than one residential dwelling or more than three (3) hotel, motel, lodge,
bed and breakfast, boardinghouse, roominghouse or dormitory units shall be exempted from the growth management
competition and scoring procedures by the Growth Management Commission if all of the standards of Section
26.100.050(B)(2)(a)(2) are met.
(b) Enlargements for mixed -use development. The enlargement of an historic landmark for mixed -use
as a commercial, office or lodge development and that adds a residential dwelling unit, that increases the building's
or parcel's existing floor area ratio and its net leasable square footage shall be exempted from the growth
management competition and scoring procedures by the Growth Management Commission if all of the standards
of Section 26.100.050(B)(2)(a)(2) are met.
(2) Standards for historic landmark exemptions. To be eligible for the historic landmark exemptions
of this section, the applicant shall demonstrate that as a result of the development, mitigation of the project's
community impacts will be addressed as follows:
(Aspen 5/96) 670
To: Planning and Zoning Commission Members
Through: Julie Anne Woods, Community Development Director kit
From: Stephanie Millar, Senior Long -Range Planner th
Date: November 17, 1998 9
RE: Aspen Area Community Plan Update — Back Ground Information
Attached are summaries of work being done by each of the Aspen Area Community Plan Focus
Area Committees. Each committee has been engaged over the last several months in updating
their section of the 1993 AACP. In some cases, committees have already developed draft Intent,
Philosophy, or Policy statements or Action Items. At the citizen workshop all the committees
will discuss their draft Action Items. The workshop will be held on December 10, 5:30 to 8 PM
at the Aspen Youth Center.
An Oversight Committee composed of two members each from the City and County Planning
and Zoning Commissions, the Aspen City Council, the Board of County Commissioners, and one
representative from the Town of Snowmass Village has been formed. The Oversight Committee
is providing comments and direction to the committees in the interest of creating a document
with minimal conflicts and which represent the community as a whole.
The Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission will be asked to consider the document and make a
recommendation to City Council upon it's completion.
We encourage Aspen Planning and Zoning Commissioners to attend the public workshop on
December 101h to participate in the discussion of proposed Action Items developed by each of the
committees.
iLICP FOCAJS AR1,31A PROGMINS - (Y"'ROWTH
• Robert Zupancis
Marcella Larsen
• Terry Paulson
Doug Smith
• John Bennett
Jim Collins
• Janet Elder
Jane Dinsmoor
• Scott Russell
Jackie Lothian
• Patrick Sagal
Randy Wedum
• Mick Ireland
Joanie Klar
• King Woodward
Jackie Kasabach
• Heidi Hoffmann
Phil Holstein
• Wilk Wilkinson
John McBride
• Heather Hopton
Staff: Cindy Houben
• Jamie Knowlton
The Growth Committee has developed a draft Intent Statement and Action Items based on those
in the 1993 plan. New or changed items are indicated in Italics.
DRAFT INTENT STATEMENT
Encourage land uses, businesses and events that serve both the local permanent community and
the tourist base while preserving our high quality of life.
DRAFT ACTION ITEMS
1. Continue to combine Metro area review with the City and the County and revise growth
management to deal with all growth, including remodels. Consider the idea of an annual
quota system to remodels. Consider the idea of an annual quota system or lottery for building
permits.
2. Reduce the adopted annual growth rate quotas for the combined City of Aspen/Metro Area
from 2% to (?) %. Actual growth in the City of Aspen over the past five years has been (?) %.
3. Multi year allocations need to be tightened up and minimum allotments need to be available
for Growth Management applications.
4. Develop a tiered process that correlates the number of steps to the number of units
requested. (More steps for larger projects), and develop a separate process for conversion to
affordable housing from free market as well as for upgrades of existing affordable housing
units. Deduct affordable housing from the quota system.
5. Amend the Growth Management Quota System scoring to establish locational preferences
within the Urban Growth Boundary to promote infill development. Priority for allocations
should be given to applications in preferred locations. Scoring points should include
proximity to existing utilities.
6. Reduce amount of commercial space available in the core to eliminate unnecessary types of
commercial growth (the thought was that we do not need any more tourist -oriented retail)
and/or convert existing un-built space to locally-serving/neighborhood commercial zoning.
This would include a requirement for a percentage of employees generated by downtown
businesses to live in affordable housing on top floors in the downtown core. Give a higher
priority to on -site housing in the commercial core, such as providing additional points in,the
Growth Management scoring system. (Here we have to define locally serving and
neighborhood commercial.)
7. Add 100% mitigation requirement for employee generation; explore having parallel GMQ
systems. One system would be similar to the existing system for "new" development and the
other would be a lottery for "re- development" and "change in use ". This approach captures
both new growth and growth from existing/re-developed properties.
8. Explore developing a sliding scale to apply to all substantial or redeveloped or
reconstruction (where all or virtually all of a commercial or residential building is torn down
and rebuilt) for mitigation of affordable housing (an example is that no requirements are
necessary for houses below S, 000 square feet. Mitigation is required for x number of
employees for residential structures above S, 000 square feet) explore a remodel or
redevelopment construction fee that would be added into the affordable housing fund.
9. Develop Urban Growth Boundaries on a tiered approach starting with the primary UGB
being drawn around the existing and approved developments, under 8040 Greenline Review;
a secondary Urban Reserve area is drawn around the area that can be developed with sewer
and water, containing AFR-2 and AFR-10 zoning. ('Take a look at revising .the existing Metro
Area boundary to serve as the Urban Reserve Area.) Beyond these areas would be the
County Boundary, subject to 1041 review with zoning in R/R, RS-20, RS-30, AG and AFR-10.
10. Discourage cash -in -lieu as affordable housing mitigation for new growth, except as a last
priority to producing new units or buying down existing units. Whenever cash -in -lieu is
approved as a method of mitigation, it would require concurrency (the unit is built) prior to
construction of new development. Make cash -in -lieu payment commensurate with the cost of
building dwelling units, or buy down an existing unit.
11. The "change in use" provision of the City Code should be amended to require mitigation of
any change in use that produces a net increase in impacts. The level of mitigation required
should be 100% (up from 60%) of the increase in impacts generated by the change in use.
AACP FOCUS AREU PROGMEASS - HOUSING'
® L ®[�I.E�yI ® s7tt►ttlt��=�` !�/c=�tt��i=�h
• Ted Guy
• Phil Holstein • Karen Coordes
• Jim Curtis • Steve Felender
• Nasser Sadeghi • Shad Johnson
• Sha Cohen • Anne Chapman
• Chris, Jackie & Jessica Tyler • Jackie Kasabach
• Darnell Langley • Janette Whitcomb
• Frank Peters • Jamie Knowlton
• John Young • Tim Semrau
• Cowan Chang • Jennifer Albright
• Wilk Wilkinson • Staff: Dave Tolen
• EM Weinstein • Staff: Chris Bendon
• Jane Dinsmoor
• Howard Bass
- • - � 40 - •
DRAFT PHILOSOPHY: THE GUIDING PoLICYS'TATEHENTSABOUT HOUSING
The Housing Committee generally believes that the affordable housing built in the past five years
has been of a high quality and compatible with its respective neighborhood. To ensure continued
success, there should be a method of retrospectively evaluating projects.
Downvalley. The limited supply of quality affordable housing is a problem that extends beyond
the Aspen Area - it is truly a valley -wide problem. Coordination with our neighboring down
valley communities is necessary. However, the Downvalley should not bear the brunt of
Aspen's inability to house it's workers.
Good City Form. Housing policy should emphasize community, not just units. Development of
Affordable housing in the upper valley should be first and foremost within walking distance of
employment areas and where it can create or augment livable neighborhoods. This is important
not only for efficiency, but for community. Housing sites should be rated, with emphasis placed
on housing within walking distance to major employment areas.
Infill Development. Development of affordable housing within the traditional townsite should
be encouraged so as to preserve open space and rural areas and allow more employees to live
near where they work and opportunities to become a part of the town's social fabric. Density is
desirable where it is appropriate and can reinforce less reliance on the automobile.
Methods. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority should be a conduit to produce AH by
several means, not only the traditional form of development. Concepts such as landbanking and
public private partnerships may actually produce more units, faster, with less public subsidy.
Financial responsibility. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority should spend public
monies in a financially responsible manner. In land use theory, each potential affordable housing
site has an optimum development potential based on its physical characteristics. Likewise, in
economic theory, each public project has an optimum public subsidy -- the lowest one. It is
inappropriate for the Housing Authority to predetermine these optimums. In addition, it is
inappropriate for their site planning to be driven by an arbitrary per -bedroom subsidy. The
Housing Authority's charge is to propose development which represents good land use planning
with minimum public subsidy. We believe the elected and appointed officials, our decision
makers, should be the ones to contemplate these optimums on an individual basis.
Encouraging the Private Sector. The 1993 AACP stated "the private sector must be encouraged
financially and morally to solving the problem." We still believe the private sector and non-
profits can play an important role in the affordable housing dilemma. We cannot place the entire
burden upon the Housing Authority. The public review process for affordable housing
developers can be a quagmire of uncertainty. This may actually discourage private and non-
profit sector development of affordable housing
Inclusion. Our mix of people with different economic conditions has made Aspen Housing
should not ghettoize economic and social strata but should reinforce diversity and contribute to
the sense of town. Housing projects should involve healthy mix of economic strata including be
encouraged in established neighborhoods.
Strategy. There should be a clearly defined strategies and action items to enable our elected
officials to meet our affordable housing goals. Our proposed strategy provides a road map of
how to get there from here. The action items suggest specific policies for elected officials to
consider how to implement this strategy.
Guidelines. There should be a clear set of guidelines established which direct decisions so that
housing policy is not recreated with each land use review. These guidelines should provide the
community the ability to amend policy as necessary as our housing circumstances change.
However, these guidelines should not change so often as to cause havoc upon property owner's
rights. A reasonable time between amendments is 3 years.
AACIP FO(*.'.IIJS AREAA PROGMENS
ARTS, CIULTURE .l 13DUCOPATION
• Janet Garwood
•
Carol Loewenstern
• Joan Bracken Bain
•
John Noonan
• Deborah Barnekow
Damian Panetta
• Sally Barnett
Kaaren Ray
• Tammie Dauson
Doug Rhinehart
• Linda Gerdenich
Nida Tautvydas
• Martha Horan
Laura Thielen
• Deborah Jones
Jill Uris
• Scott Levine
Staff: Mitch Haas
�s�Setic nd ncents nev reursuina
PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT:
Founded on the Paepcke's principle of mind, body, and spirit, Aspen recognizes the importance
of arts, culture, and education as cornerstones of our lifestyle and community. They increasingly
support the community's economic and spiritual well-being and are acknowledged as integral
parts of Aspen's thriving year round economy and international profile.
The City of Aspen will be an innovative leader in arts, culture, and education by fostering
creativity and excellence, promoting diversity, and increasing community dialogue. It is
dedicated to developing, educating, and providing access to the arts, culture and education to all
residents and visitors of the Roaring Fork Valley.
The philosophy for the Aspen community as it relates to the arts, culture, and education is to:
• Provide opportunities to inspire citizens of all ages to think, to learn, to achieve, and to care;
• Preserve and build upon our cultural heritage;
• Strengthen our economy;
• Enrich our lives while challenging our imagination and beliefs;
• Develop and cultivate local artists;
• Provide greater access to educational and artistic experiences for valley residents in an effort to break down the
perception of the arts as an elitist pursuit;
• Foster continued intellectual and spiritual growth and development;
• Provide arts and education that reflect and celebrate ethnic and social diversity;
• Promote interactive artistic, cultural, and educational experiences {between artists and audiences);
• Strengthen and support the funding of non -profits
• Increase community support for quality education (public and private); and,
• Inspire the community to embrace the arts as a part of daily life.
t1ACP FOCTS AREAA PROGMEASS - C'MARAC-71M
• Nick De Wolf
John Kane
• Maggie De Wolf
•
Chad King
• John Doremus
•
Helen Klanderud
• Sven Alstrom
•
Lynne Mace
• Debbie Ayers
•
Jody McCabe
• Jeremy Bernstein
Mary Woulfe
• Carol Craig
•
Brad Zanin
• Pete Dempsey
•
Tom Baker
• Evan Griffiths
•
Kevin Dunnett
• Carol Hershey
•
Staff: Bob Nevins
• Mary Hirsch
Msion tatementO�,���' a
VISION STATEMENT
Since the 1992 AACP "Messy Vitality" vision statement, the Aspen Area Community's center of
balance has shifted downvalley and its economic disparities have widened significantly. Our ability to
maintain and enhance our once -unique character hinges on understanding these fast -changing
demographics.
To build character and sense of community is far more difficult than to erode it. Much of the warm,
supportive, and creative spirit we have enjoyed has been destroyed and is being replaced by a big -city
anonymity. We must work together towards reversing this trend, and focus on building unique character.
The genuine character of our community should be measured by the quality of our human interactions,
and not merely the physical look of our man-made artifacts or the magnificent beauties of nature
surrounding us. Aspen has been a "Magic" place, with a unique mix of people, many of them
overqualified, reinforcing each other with a sophisticated small town spirit. Character has to be built, not
merely purchased.
Our nature has been consciously inclusive and has abhorred exclusivity. Aspen has flourished because
it has accepted people for who they are, and not for whom we think they should be. A stratified class
system is foreign to Aspen and is in opposition to our concept of a healthy valley. Valuable 'accidental'
cross-cultural interaction is now being blocked. Encouragement of a more classless and interactive Aspen
is necessary if we are to have a spirited community.
Openness is closing and hidden agendas are increasing. Difficulties of survival and career
competitiveness are hampering our cooperativeness. Our heritage as a very special place is being
challenged. We must allow change without restrictive conformity that stifles creativity. Our excessive
body of regulations must not keep expanding and many should be reconsidered.
As Aspen moves into the third decade of its second hundred years, we need to remember and preserve
its history, and to be thankful that it has survived to welcome us. Historic preservation is important, but it
must not attempt to replace common sense with rigid and restricting regulations.
The relationships between the citizenry and the city government need improvement. More open and
sincere communications are badly needed. Although the government does encourage much public input,
there is a sense of opaqueness and tolerant inattentiveness. The distance between apparent agreement and
action is too wide, and citizens often feel ignored in the outcome. Rather than creating new rules we
should creatively solve problems. Let's encourage more citizen -inspired contributions, while being
sympathetic to the excessive demands placed on our government. The task of protecting us from over-
zealous exploitation is wearying. Micromanagement too often muzzles sensible immediate solutions: We
should become closer partners.
Any measures, even extreme ones, to make Aspen a more pedestrian oriented town will enhance our
interactivity: Let's put our feet first! A substantial investment in bicycle infrastructure should be
accelerated. We should pioneer in the use of light electric vehicles.
Affordable housing must be carefully allotted and managed to maintain the dignity and worth of the
inhabitants, and not degrade their sense of ownership and pride. Because we are long on jobs and short on
housing, employer -owned family housing carries great risks of unfair demands. We must temper our zeal
for more housing with careful consideration for the impacts on our character.
Growth can be overrated as the sole cause of our problems, as it is possible to grow, yet build strong
community character. To measure our growth, much better use of indicators and data are needed, and the
definitions of these numbers should not be manipulated to satisfy an objective. The nature of growth is
more important than size.
Aspen needs more get-together places and public activities that naturally encourage us to informally
mix all of our diverse human elements. We must not let such places escape us, and we must enhance the
use of our many under-utilized locales.
The arts and culture of our valley should continue to encourage local creators as well as to import
celebrity talent. Our schools, groups, and conferences of art, music, dance, theatre, film, multimedia,
literature, and design are at the heart of our cultural liveliness and accessibility. The high educational
level of our citizens demands a strong cultural environment as will our new web -connected arrivals.
The success of Aspen the Resort depends on the success of Aspen the Community. The powerful
influences of exploitation must be countered by a caring and tolerant citizenry and government, or we will
degrade into a Disneyland for private jets. A better balance is needed between the priorities of the
community and the resort, as well as closer ties. We must put the best interests of people before
buildings, and we must demonstrate our good will towards each other and all comers.
AACP I�OCIJS Altl'vA PILOGIL1iSS -
TRANSPORTATION
• Roger Hunt
•
Donnie Lee
• Toni Kronberg
Jonathan Lowsky
• Lisa A. McManigal
Shelley Lundh
• Patrick Sagal
Howie Mallory
• Charlie Tarver
Terry Paulson
• John Walla
•
Mark Pearson
• Bob Daniel
•
Fonda Petterson
• Don Davidson
•
Jake Vickary
• John Doremus
•
Tim Ware
• Linda Gerdenich
•
EM Weinstein
• Patti Hecht
•
Mary Liz Wilson
• Phil Holstein
•
Staff: Claude Morelli
• John Krueger
The broader community has discussed many of the issues of interest to the Transportation
Committee at length over the last few years. Building on the work already completed, the
Transportation Committee has been working on a variety of transportation planning issues.
General Transit Related Goals:
• Create a transit system that is attractive to all types of users, for all types of trips
• Improve the quality and quantity of service
• Support the hiring of more bus drivers and the provision of affordable housing for those
drivers
• Improve bus stops and transit ridership by providing additional bus shelters and storage for
traveler belongings at transit stops
• Develop a program to incorporate art into the transit system. For example, murals, poetry, or
sculpture could be incorporated on transit vehicles and at transit stops
• Improve comfort of transit riders and increase ridership by purchasing transit vehicles which
allow riders to read, sleep, socialize, etc. in comfort
General Bicycle Related Goals:
• Improve safety conditions for bike riders
• Improve bicycle storage opportunities
• Improve bike path connections
• Better integrate bicycle ad transit
• Study a program to provide a fleet of "free -use" bikes in Aspen
• Increase funding/priority for bicycle facility improvements
General Pedestrian Related Goals
• Improve pedestrian connections (via sidewalks) from the residential areas to the commercial
core
• Provide safer and more convenient pedestrian crosswalks on Main and Mill Streets
• Increase funding/priority for pedestrian facility improvements
General Carpools/Van Pools Related Goals
• Increase number of drivers using carpools and vanpools by providing equipment (vans) and
ride -matching services
General Parking Related Goals
• Reduce the demand for travel by automobile by limiting growth in the supply of parking
• Ensure that people coming to Aspen to shop can find parking downtown when they need it,
but encourage daily commuters to use alternative modes
• Establish parking "maximums" instead of parking "minimums"
• Extend the area of parking enforcement (e.g., Iselin Park, the schools, the Marolt Housing
project, Burlingame, etc.)
• Extend the hours of parking enforcement
• Ensure that parking / pedestrian conflicts are minimal
General Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Related Goals
• Increase the participation of area employers in the Transportation Options Program
General Traveler Information Related Goals
• Improve traveler's experience by providing local travel information at bus stops, on the
WWW, through brochures, etc.
• Encourage travelers to use alternative modes such as RFTA
General Freight and Luggage Transfer Related Goals
• Reduce truck traffic by supporting the creation of a freight delivery service
• Explore a luggage transfer service to and from the airport as a means of reducing travel by
visitors in automobiles
General Land Use and Development Regulation Related Goals
• Require new developments in the Aspen Area to be transit friendly
• Require new developments to include strong disincentives to single occupant automobile
travel
• Eliminate or reduce the parking supply requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code
• Extend the area of coverage of the sidewalk ordinance of the Aspen Municipal Code
At1CP FOCUS AILIiA PILOGI[IiSS - HISTORIC!
PREASEiRVATION fi D14SIC"rN C'.10MMITT1.431.44i
Historic Preservation
Design
• Suzannah Reid
Bill Lipsey
• Roger Moyer
Bob Blaich
• Gilbert Sanchez
•
Donnelley Erdman
• Susan Doddington
•
Tim Semrau
• Jeffrey Halferty
•
Heidi Freidland
• Heidi Freidland
•
Suzannah Reid
• Melanie Roschko
•
Michael Ernemann
• Lisa Markalunas
•
Jonathan Lewis
• Christie Kienast
Lynnie Coulter
• Maureen MacDonald
•
Jennifer Cohen
• Mary Hirsch
•
Anne Gardner -Smith
• Staff: Amy Guthrie
•
Keith Howie
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
The Historic Preservation Commission is building on the work completed at the Preservation
Symposium in August 1998. HPC feels that this intensive discussion, attended by approximately
40 people, successfully identified the goals and work plan for this program for the foreseeable
future.
DESIGN
A separate committee has been formed to focus on design issues in general. Following are the
basic tenets of the Philosophy Statement they are currently drafting:
Design Committee Draft Policies
• Policy: Make quality design apart of the public conscience, as it is in cities like Charleston
• Policy: Lead by example: Public projects should be models of good development.
• Policy: Support public and professional education: Get community buy -in. People need to
understand the issues.
• Policy: Lead by example: Public projects should be models of good development.
• Policy: Simplify codes
• Policy: Encourage a big picture view — a "pattern language "for Aspen
AACT FOCUS AREAA PROGREASS - PARKS, IIPIiN
SPAC1.1.41, AND TH13 ENVIRONMENT
■ John Starr Steve Saunders
■ Pat Fallin Stephan Kanipe
■ Jennifer Craig ■ Tom Dunlop
■ Tony Petrocco ■ Staff: Becca Schickling
Draft Intent: Sustainability, Partnerships, Access
Preserve, enhance and restore the natural beauty of the environment of the Aspen area. Provide low -
impact facilities to support the sustainable use of unimproved areas. Support an environment that betters
the lives of all, preserves our natural resources and provides opportunities and access for all to enjoy.
Further the growth and development of outdoor recreation through expanded partnerships between
government agencies, not -for -profit organizations, and the general citizenry.
Draft Philosophy: Sustainability, Education
Implicit in the development and growth of the other elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan is the
continued acquisition and preservation of open space within our developed area, as well as the further
development, management and preservation of our parks and trails. In an effort to balance these
important community values, including the implementation of affordable housing development plans and
transportation plans, there is a need to continually evaluate how to best achieve these goals in
consideration of minimizing the impacts to the other elements of the plan.
There is wide -spread acknowledgment that open space for visual and recreational needs is one of
Aspen's highest priorities and requires constant protection. Nestled in the mountains, Aspen enjoys open
space views, native and riparian habitats, and recreational opportunities. From the core of town, the views
and the immediate accessibility to outdoor recreational opportunities embody our community character
and economic viability, and must be preserved and enhanced.
In order to maintain and preserve the sustainability of our existing inventory of trails, parks and open
space, fees should be collected for the use of these areas. Fees then need to be "reinvested" into these
facilities to maintain and restore the resources of our trails, parks and open space, including establishment
of an educational program that furthers the knowledge of the community of how to preserve and protect
our natural resources.
The natural environment is one of the community's greatest assets, and the reason may choose to visit or
make the Aspen area their home. From sensitive land development to air and water quality to recycling
efforts to habitat restoration, life in this community must reflect the commitment to preserve our
environmental and wildlife resources.
�s�nerl G012s0110'aIe0 6a 2lfaf1012 01SIZ-1Cf
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (970) 925-3601
Sy Kelly - Chairman
Paul Smith • Treas.
Louis Popish • Secy.
October 23, 1998
Chris Bendon
Community Development
130 S . Galena
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Elden Stream Margin Review
Dear Chris:
FAX #(970) 925-2537
Michael Kelly
Frank Loushin
Bruce Matherly, Mgr.
`N j
QEVELOP !ili:�T
The drainage plan included in the Elden stream margin application addresses the District's
requirement that all surface run-off and sources of clear water be excluded from the public
wastewater system. The construction of dry wells and swales addresses our concerns in that
regard.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
EPA Awards of Excellence
1976 • 1986 • 1990
Regional and National
APPLICANT: Richard Elden, Represented by Glenn Horn
LOCATION: 727 Bay Street (Oklahoma Flats)
ACTION: Stream Margin Review
STREAM MARGIN:
Standards applicable to development within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River and
its tributary streams:
A. No development shall be permitted in the floodway, with the exception of
bridges or structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water
diversion, which may be permitted by the City Engineer, provided plans
and specifications are submitted to demonstrate that the structure is
engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows
and the Commission determines the proposed structure complies, to the
extent practical, with all standards set forth below.
B. No development shall be permitted within one hundred (100) feet,
measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River
and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood Hazard Area where
it extends beyond 100 feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork
River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all
standards 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 in the State of Colorado which
shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, but not
limited to, proposed mitigation techniques on or off -site which
compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the
development.
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Community Plan, Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan
Map, or areas of historic public use or access are dedicated via
a recorded easement for public use. Dedications are
necessitated by development's increased impacts to the City's
recreation and trail facilities including public fishing access.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are
implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practical.
4. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade
(cut/fill) made outside of a specifically defined building
envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this
review and said 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 of
Occupancy.
5. 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. Pool or hot tubs cannot be
drained outside of the designated building envelope.
6. Written notice shall be provided 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.
7. 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.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits
related to the work within the 100-year floodplain.
9. 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. If any development is essential
within this area, it may only be approved by special review
pursuant to Section 26.64.040(D).
10. All development outside of 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.
11. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications.
12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no lights directed
toward the river or located down the slope.
13. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape
architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and
proposed site elements, the top -of -slope, and pertinent
elevation above sea level.
14. There has been accurate identification of wetland and
riparian areas.
Davis Morn,..iinc.
& REAL ESTATE CONSULTING
September 29, 1998
Chris Bendon
Aspen Pitkin Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Elden Duplex: 725 & 727 Bay Street Stream Margin Review
Dear Chris:
Davis Horn Incorporated and Warren Palmer represent Richard and
Gail Elden (hereinafter referred to as "applicant") , the owners of
a duplex located at 725 & 727 Bay Street Aspen, Colorado. This
letter requests Stream Margin and Residential Design Review
approval pursuant to Sections 26.68.040 and 26.68.040 of the Aspen
Land Use Regulations.
The following sections of this letter describe Existing Conditions,
Proposed Development and demonstrate compliance with the
Regulations.
Existing Conditions
The subject site is located in Oklahoma Flats on Bay Street. The
surrounding neighborhood is virtually all developed. In recent
years, many of the older homes have been demolished and replaced or
renovated. The Elden property is bordered by Oklahoma Flats
Subdivision Block 2 Lots 1-6 to the west, Bay Street to the north,
Oklahoma Flats Subdivision Block 2 Lot 10 and the Roaring Fork
River to the south.
As depicted on Attachment 1, a March, 1998 survey prepared by Aspen
Survey Engineers, the subject site is improved with a two story
duplex and free standing garage. The lot contains 13,250 square
feet. The survey shows that the entire site is located above the
mean high water mark of the Roaring Fork River. However, the
entire property is located within the 100 year flood.
Attachment 2 is a slope analysis of the property prepared by Aspen
Survey Engineers. The slope analysis shows that the vast majority
of the property is flat, but 375 square feet is comprised of slopes
between 20 and 30 percent and 856 square feet is comprised of
slopes in excess of 30 percent.
On July 21, 1998 the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission approved
the applicant's conditional use application for an accessory
dwelling unit to be located above the existing garage.
ALICE DAVIS, AICP I GLENN HORN, AICP
215 SOUTH MONARCH ST. - SUITE 104 - ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 - 970/925-6587 - FAX: 970/925-5180
Proposed Development
The applicant proposes to remodel the existing 3,572 square foot
duplex. The existing building footprint will remain virtually the
same. The only change to the footprint of the structure will be
the removal of approximately 240 square feet of floor area from the
south side of the structure and the addition of approximately 287
square feet to the north side of the building. The following
attachments depict the proposed development.
Attachment 3 - Building Elevations South & West;
Attachment 4 - Building Elevations North & East;
Attachment 5 - Building Floor Plan;
Attachment 6 - Floor Area; and
Attachment 7 - Landscape Plan.
Stream Margin Review
This section of the application demonstrates compliance with the
Stream Margin Review requirements, Section 26.68.040 of the Aspen
Land Use Regulations. Each of the criteria appear in bold followed
by the applicant's responses.
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 of
Colorado 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.
Refer to Attachment 8, a Federal emergency Managment Agency
National Flood Insurance Program Elevation Certificate
prepared by Vernon D. Hole II, P.E. of High Country
Engineering, Incorporated. As noted on the improvement survey
prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers, the entire property lies
within the 100 year flood plain. However, Attachment 9, a map
obtained from the City of Aspen Engineering Department shows
the base flood elevation in the site vicinity is 7,870 feet
which is lower than the elevation of the duplex. Attachment
1, the improvement survey shows the duplex is located
approximatley at the 7,776 elevation. This is also reflected
on section C the Elevation Certificate. Based upon this
information it is clear the base flood elevation will not be
2
affected by the proposed development.
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Spade/Trails Plan
map is dedicated for public use.
According to the Aspen Area Community Plan Appendix, The Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails
Element has been superseded by the Aspen Area Community Plan.
and the 1990 Pedestrian Walkway and Bikeway Plan. However, all
three plans show the existing trail to be located on the south
side of the Roaring Fork River as opposed to the north side.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are
implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practicable.
This land use application is consistent with the
recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan.
Landscaping will be consistent with the Plan recommendations.
4. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade
changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined
envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this
review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to the
issuance of any demolition excavation or building permits.
The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of
Certificates of Occupancy.
The applicant shall diligently protect the stream bank during
construction. A barricade shall be erected on the south side
of the building envelope line as depicted on Attachment 7.
No earth shall be disturbed to the south of the line.
Existing vegetation shall be preserved with the exception of
three trees on the north side of the duplex. The barricade
protecting the stream bank shall not be removed until a
certificate of occupancy is issued for the project.
5. 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
envelope.
The proposed development has been adequately setback from the
river to avoid interference with the natural changes of the
river. During construction, silt fences will be utilized to
protect the stream. Site drainage will be directed to
drywells as recommended by High Country Engineering Inc. in
Attachment 10. Hot tubs will not be drained outside of the
3
designated building envelope.
6. 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.
There will not be any alteration of the water course.
Therefore, the applicant has not notified the Colorado Water
Conservation Board.
7. 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.
As noted in Attachment 8, there is adequate room to assure
that the water course will not be altered or relocated by the
applicant or heirs. All disturbance will be restricted to the
building envelope, therefore a guarantee is not needed.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits
relating to work within the one hundred (100) year floodplain.
The applicant will obtain any federal or state permits which
may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
9. There is no development other than approved native vegetation
planting taking place below the top of the slope or within
fifteen (15) feet of the top of the slope or the high
waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort
to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank
stability. If any development is essential within this area,
it may only be approved by special review pursuant to Section
26.64.040(D) (refer to Figure "All below for illustrative
purposes).
No new development is proposed outside the building envelope.
Refer to Attachment 7, the landscape plan.
10. All development outside the fifteen (15 ) foot setback from the
top of the 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 the slope. Height shall be measured and determined
by the Zoning Officer utilizing that definition set forth at
Section 26.04.100 (refer to Figure "All below for illustrative
purposes).
The applicant met with Chuck Roth of the City of Aspen
Engineering Department on September 18, 1998. Chuck reviewed
Attachment 1 and Attachment 11, a section thru the lot
prepared by Warren Palmer, architect. As noted on Attachment
4
10, Chuck approved the determination of the top of slope
prepared by Warren Palmer. All new construction on the site
will comply with the progressive height limit delineated by
the Attachment 11.
11. A landscaping plan is submitted with all development
applications. Such plan shall limit new plantings (including
trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses) outside of the designated
building envelope on the river side to native riparian
vegetation.
Attachment 7, Landscape Plan, shows that vegetation to be
planted between the building envelope and the Roaring Fork
River will be limited to native grasses.
12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s)
directed toward the river or located down the slope.
Exterior lighting will comply with this land use requirement.
13. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape
architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and
proposed site elements, the top of the slope, and pertinent
elevations above sea level.
Attachment 11 is a section prepared by registered architect,
Warren Palmer. Attachment 1 is an improvement survey.
14. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and
riparian zones.
Attachment 12 is a September 23, 1998 letter from Andrew
Antipas, Environmental Consultant. Antipas states in his
letter that all none of the proposed improvements will impact
riparian vegetation. He concludes in his letter that wetlands
were not observed in the project area.
Residential Design Standards
This section of the application demonstrates general compliance
with the Residential Design Standards, Section 26.58 of the Aspen
Land Use Regulations. The applicant is proposing a remodel of an
existing structure. Complete compliance with the standards would
necessitate demolition of the existing duplex structure. Refer to
Attachments 3-6.
Building Orientation
The principal mass of the building faces north towards Bay Street.
There is a porch over the entry to help reinforce this orientation.
The entry door is centered on the main windows of the facade.
Windows for the kitchen and living room face the street. Standards
5
3 and 4 do not apply to this existing structure.
Building Elements
The front porch and the entrance massing represent more than 50
percent of the building overall street facing width. '
Build to Lines
These standards do not apply because of the pre-existing building
orientation.
Primary Mass
As noted by Attachment 6 the primary mass of the building does not
exceed 70 percent of th total building so, the floor area does not
need to be multiplied by 1.25.
Inflection
These standards are not applicable because the applicant is
proposing to remodel an existing two story building.
Summary
This letter and the attachments demonstrate compliance with the
Aspen Land Use Regulations.
The following list of attachments are included with this letter.
1. Survey prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers (8 1/2" x 11" and
24" x 36")
2. Slope Analysis prepared by Aspen Survey Engineers (8 1/2" x
11" and 24" x 3611)
3. South and West Building Elevations
4. North and East Building Elevations
5. Floor Plans
6. Elden Duplex Proposed Floor Area
7. Landscape Plan (8 1/2" x 11" and 24" x 3611)
8. Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Insurance
Program Elevation Certificate
9. City of Aspen Flood Plan Map
10. Drainage Plan
0
11. Top of Bank Cross Section
12. Letter from Andrew Antipas regarding Riparian Vegetation
13. Agreement for Payment of Fees
14. Letter from Richard Elden authorizing submission of
application
15. Proof of ownership
16. Vicinity map
17. Pre -application summary sheet
18. List of property owners located within 300 feet
Please contact Davis Horn Incorporated if anything needs to be
clarified or if you need any additional information.
Sincerely,
JVS INCORPORATED
AICP
ATTW I—
:
af
?: r1 Y
q'•s'r'
Ib
Ib
N ! t
0 1
- •. t �
!� -F�•Y .
�
.i�
S
G
m
a
O
`
W � o
Z • ^
w
w
>
w
a
N
z
cc
cc
�
E
L<
z _
N � w
N ~ o
� W
2j
i 7:
1I
R n
W
'
> $
E b m
i
;
w
� o
N N r i
w _
a.a
3 tii�
i
N
aa =t
Z
'n E
ATTACKOrr 3.,.,,,,r„
V I I ;W IEW LOOKING WEST
BEERY AND BABKA
DEN DUPLEX
R 1/8"-1'-0"
]MBER 2,9, 1998
CHMElff.awlem, 1�
EAST
V I I{; W I_10 C)
BEEBY ANI) BABKA
DEN DU FTEX
E: 1/8''=--1'--
MBh,R 2,1, 1998
ATTACMW
tip
M M bd
M CT7
� cc)
v
C
Q0 0
CX)
�D
ATr (a
CJ
W)
OC
QYom
-4
a �1
wQ ��
m
Q
7 W U (DI
rJ�
w
0
0
v
m
o
z
E-
U
o
U
U)
O
o
U
�
CL
U�
�D
W
o0Q
zz
E~
�
U�
C)
E-
Ln M CO
��L
.-a 03
CJ
C\,2Loo
CQ Lo O C
tfJ
�
�
"T
I I
� cy')
ATTACOM -7
3
amp
0
stivm
m
cn
(A
0
co
n
Z
M
z
o
n
m
ELEVATION CERTIFICATE
.1�'T TACHMENT 3067-0on
Ewes May 31,1996
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
I" 'TION: Use of this certificate does not provide a waiver of the flood insurance purchase requirement. This form is used only to
F elevation information necessary to ensure compliance with applicable community floodplain management ordinances, to
deo.. mine the proper insurance premium rate, and/or to support a request for a Letter of Map Amendment or Revision (LOMA or LOMR).
Instructions for completing this form can be found on the following pages.
SECTION A PROPERTY INFORMATION I FOR INSURANCE COMPANY USE I
BUILDING OWNER'S NAME
STREET ADDRESS (Including Apt., Unit, Suite and/or Bldg. Number) OR P.O. ROUTE AND BOX NUMBER
727 Bav Street
OTHER DESCRIPTION (Lot and Block Numbers, etc.)
POLICY NUMBER
COMPANY NAIC NUMBER
Lots 7-9, Block 2 — Oklahoma Flats
CITY STATE ZIP CODE
Aspen CO 81611
SECTION B FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (FIRM) INFORMATION
Provide the following from the proper FIRM (See Instructions):
1. COMMUNITY NUMBER
2. PANEL NUMBER
3. SUFFIX
4. DATE OF FIRM INDEX
5. FIRM ZONE
6. BASE FLOOD ELEVATION
(in AO Zones, use depth)
080143
0204
C
6/4/87
AE
7872.5
7. Indicate the elevation datum system used on the FIRM for Base Flood Elevations (BFE): M NGVD '29 ❑ Other (describe on back)
8. For Zones A or V, where no BFE is provided on the FIRM, and the community has established a BFE for this building site, indicate
the community's BFE: I I I I I J.L feet NGVD (or other FIRM datum —see Section B, Item 7).
SECTION C BUILDING ELEVATION INFORMATION
' ",ing the Elevation Certificate Instructions, indicate the diagram number from the diagrams found on Pages 5 and 6 that best
scribes the subject building's reference level 1
FIRM Zones Al-A30, AE, AH, and A (with BFE). The top of the reference level floor from the selected diagram is at an elevation
ofl 17 1817 16J.111 feet NGVD (or other FIRM datum —see Section B, Item 7).
(b). FIRM Zones V1430, VE, and V (with BFE). The bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the reference level from
the selected diagram, is at an elevation of I I 1 1 1 J.H feet NGVD (or other FIRM datum —see Section B, Item 7).
(c). FIRM Zone A (without BFE). The floor used as the reference level from the selected diagram is II .0 feet above ❑ or
below ❑ (check one) the highest grade adjacent to the building.
(d). FIRM Zone AO. The floor used as the reference level from the selected diagram is W .0 feet above ❑ or below ❑ (check
one) the highest grade adjacent to the building. If no flood depth number is available, is the building's lowest floor (reference
level) elevated in accordance with the community's floodplain management ordinance? ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
3. Indicate the elevation datum system used in determining the above reference level elevations: ® NGVD '29 ❑ Other (describe
under Comments on Page 2). (NOTE: If the elevation datum used in measuring the elevations is different than that used on
the FIRM [see Section B, Item 7], then convert the elevations to the datum system used on the FIRM and show the conversion
equation under Comments on Page 2.1)
4. Elevation reference mark used appears on FIRM: ® Yes ❑ No (See Instructions on Page 4)
5. The reference level elevation is based on: �] actual construction ❑ construction drawings
(NOTE. Use of construction drawings is only valid if the building does not yet have the reference level floor in place, in which
case this certificate will only be valid for the building during the course of construction. A post -construction Elevation Certificate
will be required once construction is complete.)
6. The elevation of the lowest grade immediately adjacent to the building is:1 1718171� 1.101 feet NGVD (or other FIRM datum -see
Section B, Item 7).
SECTION D COMMUNITY INFORMATION
le community official responsible for verifying building elevations specifies that the reference level indicated in Section C, Item 1
not the "lowest floor" as defined in the community's floodplain management ordinance, the elevation of the building's "lowest
floor" as defined by the ordinance is: I I 1 111.0 feet NGVD (or other FIRM datum —see Section B, Item 7).
2. Date of the start of construction or substantial improvement Spring of 1999
FEMA Form 81-31, MAY 93 REPLACES ALL PREVIOUS EDITIONS SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR CONTINUATION
r
SECTION E CERTIFICATION
Th;- mortification is to be signed by a land surveyor, engineer, or architect who is authorized by state or local law to certify elevation
i! ton when the elevation information for Zones Al—A30, AE, AH, A (with BFE),V1—V30,VE, and V (with BFE) is required.
C, Jnity officials who are authorized by local law or ordinance to provide floodplain management information, may also sign the
certification. In the case of Zones AO and A (without a FEMA or community issued BFE), a building official, a property owner, or an
owner's representative may also sign the certification.
Reference level diagrams 6, 7 and 8 - Distinguishing Features —If the certifier is unable to certify to breakaway/non-breakaway wall,
enclosure size, location of servicing equipment, area use, wall openings, or unfinished area Feature(s), then list the Feature(s) not
included in the certification under Comments below. The diagram number, Section C, Item 1, must still be entered.
I certify that the information in Sections B and C on this certificate represents my best efforts to interpret the data available.
I understand that any false statement may be punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S. Code, Section 1001.
CERTIFIER'S NAME LICENSE NUMBER (or Affix Seal)
Vernon D. Hope, II, P.E. 30939
TITLE COMPANY NAME
Principal Engineer High Country Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS CITY • . .. I - ' ' STATE ZIP
oouer Avenue Glenwood Springs CO 81601
SIGNATURE DATE PHONE
k%— �- cj (970) 945-8676
Copies should be made of this Certificate for:1) community official, 2) insurance agent/company, and 3) building owner.
C019 "EW"S: Land Survex-ed by Aspen Survey Enginjeers, Inc., March 1998 - E
RM#21 used as elevation benchmark.
ON WITH ON PILES,
SLAB BASEMENT PIERS, OR COLUMNS
A V A A V
ZONES ZONES ZONES ZONES ZONES
REFERENCE
LEVEL
REFERENCE BASE
REFERENCE
LEVEL
LEVEL FLOOD
ELEVATION
F. i':::
BASE
BASE ADJACENT REFERENCE
FLOOD
FLOOD GRADE LEVEL
ELEVATION
ELEVATION REFERENCE ADJACENT
LEVEL GRADE
.i.::=`� :: .'y ':°?.:' °:`,• :: i. ' .` j
:': y ADJACENT:;:
:•:r•; : ::; ,;;; �:: GRADE
•' :: ..... .. ....
The diagrams above illustrate the points at which the elevations should be measured in A Zones and V Zones.
Elevations for all A Zones should be measured at the top of the reference level floor.
Elevations for all V Zones should be measured at the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member.
Page 2
Ei
- 1•
a
[
a
�i cc
V.
O O
z z
�o
O
Cl p
N ac
cm
O O
W{'
N /x W
O O
p
O O
_
W
Y W =
qK 6i
OC Oc
! Z Z
Q
Y Y
O < —
O b. - 4
Z
CD CD
H q
O O
J — ►—
W
u Oa
1
1
J
o
I
�0
—
g
N
�
Q
T
z
v
%� 1 - _ wA..
9N�yliS
C
Q
Q
1�
�J
I
Deric J. Walter, E.I.
Design Engineer
NN61 •`�
Revi wed by:
Leslie A. -Hope, P.E.0,%••,,
Project ManagerONAL
923 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORAD0 816 '
Telephone (970) 945-8676 • Fax (970) 945-2555
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SFCTI0N
INTRODUCTION
OFF -SITE BASIN / ROARING FORK RIVER
HYDROLOGY
DRAINAGE PLAN
SUMMARY
DRAWINGS: Vicinity Map (8.5" x 11 ")
Proposed Grading and Drainage Plan (11 " x 17")
Floodplain Map (8.5" x 11 ")
Drywell Detail
APPENDIX: Calculations
PAGE
1
1
1
1
1
INTRODUCTION
The proposed residential development for Lots 7-9, Block 2 of Oklahoma Flats is located on Bay
Street in the City of Aspen, Colorado. The proposed development calls for the construction of an
approximate 287 square foot addition to the existing residential building. The entire site is situated
on approximately 0.304 acres. See the enclosed Vicinity Map for site location.
OFF -SITE BASIN / ROARING FORK RIVER
The only major drainage basin affecting the property is the Roaring Fork River. The Roaring Fork
River Flows along the southern edge of the property. The normal River level is significantly lower
than the existing/proposed structure. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map, (Community
Number 08097C, Panel 204C, Revised June 4, 1987) produced by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the entire site located within the 100 year and 500 year floodplain of the
Roaring Fork River. An examination of the site elevation versus the floodplain elevation indicates
that the maximum flood elevation would be at approximately 7872.5 feet. However, the structure of
interest has an existing/proposed finish floor elevation of 7876.1 feet. No construction activities,
fill material or excavation is permitted within the 100-year floodway. The approximate location is
shown on the FEMA map and Grading and Drainage Plan.
HYDROLOGY
The hydrologic methods for this study are outlined in the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
publication "Procedures for Determining Peak Flows in Colorado" (1980) and the computer
program SCS TR-55. Peak on -site flows in this area will be primarily rainfall derived. Therefore,
the storm drainage system should be more than adequate to handle on -site spring snowmelt runoff.
DRAINAGE PLAN
The drainage basin for this study was taken as the entire site. All storm runoff from the buildings
will be captured by roof drains, directed into drainage swales and gravity flow into the proposed
drywells. Detention volumes were found using the SCS TR-55 Tabular Method to mitigate the
effects of the 100 year, 24 hour storm. The detention volume required is based on the volume
needed to lower the peak from the 100 year runoff under proposed conditions to match the 100 year
runoff from the site's natural conditions. The general flow patterns are shown on the enclosed
Grading and Drainage Plan, along with general locations of the proposed drywells. A detail for a
typical proposed precast concrete dry -well is also included in this report. Even though the drywell
sizing is based on the 100 year storm, an acceptable overflow path should be provided in the event
that the grates becomes plugged. Overlot grading shall ensure that drainage is directed away from
residencies in all directions.
SUMMARY
The Drainage Plan for the Lots 7-9, Block 2 of Oklahoma Flats includes a variety of drainage
improvements, all designed to work together to mitigate the expected impacts on the site.
BAY STREET, Aspen, CO
0 300m
�.- _ SIT
- _ _ 'rt----� ---tie
82
1
01997 GeoS) sWms GbbaI Corps.
i
(
ASPEN, COLORADO
LOTS 7-9 OKLAHOMA FLATS
VON(TY MAP
HIGH COUNM ENGINEERING. M DES. DJW CK. RDN FILE NO. SHEET t
923 COOPER AVEILJE
GLENWOOD SPRNCA CO MW
98081—Ot [DR. DJW DATE 9/23/98 98t38i 01 OF t
LEGEND
W
1
r..
�-7846 p °v
,ZONE X
ZONE AE
ROARING rORK RIVER
l � -
R M 21 f onrhrir/w'
A.tl
x `' CITY OF ASPEN ZONE X
080143
4/
•ZONE X .
i : 7885
i EAST i
O NpP i
ITE
A. } 1
y E H c� 110
___'78751
r7878.oh ' 0 ,9 O
S,o
Fonthridw• �/�
..t
�� €P ZONE X sTq\
7898 7905
5 Q P4
P
7913 '
EAs T 7892 f >
Q
7894 f AVEryVE Frrothridge 7:
cr W \
2 UAf
HC)p
EAST r' a
2; J AV
J
o r'
VI F:
0
0 z A VeNuE 'W
792 6 tY E{
ru_ W a
F- J� tL
m
SALE Ali
i gVfryV 7931
Z E 7936 z i -
o
q vE
NUE /
ER ZONE AE
I
WAIT T942� 7946
r l AVENUE 17951
ZONE X CJ
sv
7956 R
7960 , •
CENTENNIA
CIRCLE
1966
-SPECIAL FLOOD NAZARO ARIAS SIUMDATED
IV rI►YEA t FLOOD
Zell A
ZON/M I..wr...ra.rw..<
ZDN/ A" fa..• tow. d l r a hr a—w w..a
.ri•y' W .1...I..�w f.w�...
1009 N Fbd •.aw. d 1 Y a J. /mod. rr
M Y•u• aw..rp w� a.awr
adawdd. I v .r •. i..• w rd•
ra, wr.rr. do a......a
ZONE AM T. r aww.r• U.w NO~ a. W rr
/dwl w..a d_ www rr
...wn.w..:r W a1.wlrwarwr.L
ZONI V C..�l .dd• Ind.
ad�k Y W �... r.�� awd•
Wad
ZON/ VI CYw11 e..e .M .....w area I.w
a"* W w..• .r rr�lYl.
- FLOODWAY AREAS NL ZONE At
®OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE x Ar•Y al SOOtiw 1k d: ann of
Iftlw now ww awrga eqw.
of km aka• I bn w w eramW
aran l.w al.aw 1 word• owe; nd
an" •r.wW N k..•. Inw IW
rw no".
OTHER AREAS
ZawE x AnY e.nrwww u be «.,iM SIP
•w 16.4 •lava.
ZONE D Area in .k" 16"d aunrel as
wMYrwinec
Fl•we I•owean
F, I a, EaWdT
Z. O seek*"
.awed. o Hased n. a d bo Flad
maday
DI.ieMS Ana. d oitrdw
cma" Sam fm" Eiaw•Ww
wmww SF•cnl Fbwzowc
Nau1e
Eli am Fined EY.aa1•w Liver flip
"am I* few•
O D cr S•CR•w Lim
IEL 9071 Sm FW E6...iw in few
RM7x "soil=RaIa Mot
•RafwawcN u alr Malhlwal6•we•Ya YwMli/ Dared IRZI -
arr�uxwwlt eLAu 1n /tt r
ywo o sww
�El
END UTINAL tuGI IIISINAluc PnouM I
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO AND
INCORPORATED AREAS
PANEL 204 OF 325
dw1Y.
uwwwrr uww�n I•d1
area ur• • ww, ur c
..w[M1wYNaaYY and am C
I
I
I
1
08097CO204 C
EFFECTIVE DATE:
JUNE 4,1987
F4L% Eire/ acy M-mr-OU AFEsry
'w' ASPEN, COLORADO -
"""'�"' LOTS 7-9 �H� FLATS
FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP
HIOM COUNTRY Qom' M DES. DJW CK. RDN FILE NO. SHEET 1
923 COOPER AVENLIE
98081-01 �� WOI� [DR. DJW DATE 9/23/98 9M01 I OF 1
RAPHIC SCALE
( of rm )
.'; 1 Ine► 7D ft
LEGEN
PK7OITIMOPOSED RRDN6
COS WIC COHOIETC
PROPOSE0 1' CONTOUR
PRomsim, SCONTOUR
OUS7&4 I. COMMA
CCS704 V CONTOUR
—o ooS7111411D WOoo rEMCE
EXISTING S' COMTCLR
COSTING LOT UNIX
PRO►OSED CEmw%i C so"
i PROPOSED SLD►CMT CONTROL FEFCE
yCf': PROPOM OIRTWELL
y •,{.{, PROPOSm OWKCTdI Or FLOW
UTILITY wx
-''•' EL.ECTMC METERS
CAS METERS
':..+ OCCEIUOUS TRE.E(S)
CONFER TRU(S)
NOTES
..:> ARED BY ASPEN SURVEY E+cKu>, NC.,
UAR04 lift
Nf•{` E30STEO ON C110UM0 At TIME OF lUItvCT:
CULATEO 11150 SF.!
A101 7170 AS PER CITY MAP.
ON 9DOO4 YARM AT THE &K COMM OF
{'•� AS PEA FEAM Fi000 NSURAMC[ STLOY OF
}{'•''+ OF 7.W&so nit THIS OATTRI WAS
Yi-.may OTHERS
ID OPEJIf1' UES MTHN THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
..-:- WORMATIQN MSEO ON FrMA FLO00 INSURANCE
NTY PANEL W. 0♦•0143 OODIIL CITY OF
a a00 OAZ OECEM9ER 4. 111111& PITKN COUNTY
v E
4.0 ON THE SW CORWA OF LOT 1 *0 THE NW
'`i i, BLOCK T: OKLAHOMA FLATS ADDITION TO
j L. N I50.SO.00'E YELLOW PLASTIC CAPS
fw
PROJECT NO.
990BtO1
9/23/98
DING and DRAINAGE ,EET
a
STANDARD RISER
SECTION(S)
PERFORATED RISER
SECTION(S)
0 ° 0
—_0
° ° 0 0 0
0 ° — 0
0 ° 0
° °
°
°
° — 0
0 —
° 00 0
0
INLET c.:* RAME & GRATE
N 24„
° — 0
�— 2 4" —�{ _ 0 —
0 ° 0 O °
° 0 °
a °
°
°
°
ad
a
a
<
1—
CR
ST
---- 5.0'
5"
1/2„
JSHED
DNE
30"
MIN. `
° p=:o
_ 0_0
12" ° —°0 0 ° —°0 ° 0 — 0-° 0 —00 °
°° 0 0 O 0 O 0° 0 0 0° 0 0
0 O 0 0 0 0 0 /
0 0 0 D 0 0 0
NOTE:
1. PRECAST MANHOLE SECTIONS TO MEET ASTM C-478
2. BACKFILL EXCAVATION AROUND STRUCTURE WITH COMPACTED
1-1/2" CRUSHED STONE, TO TOP OF PERFORATED SECTIONS.
3. MINIMUM OVERALL DEPTH PER DRYWELL SHALL BE 6 FEET.
4. PERFORATED SECTION, 5 FT. MINIMUM INTO PERVIOUS ALLUVIUM.
TYPICAL GRASSED
AREA 1' MIN.
TOPSOIL
GRADE RINGS OF
EQUAL HEIGHT
CONE SECTION
PRECAST CONCRETE DRY WELL.
AS"
r ASPEN, COLORADO
LOTS 7-9, OKLAHOMA FLATS
DRAINAGE STUDY
DRYWE J- DETAIL
DES. DJW CK. RDN FILE NO. SHEET 1
9W COOPER AVENUE
Whvi000 98081-01 ) � DR. DJW DATE 9/23/98 9MOl OF t
APPENDIX
Project Job No. '9 8 pg
By i>.3 Date g /2-P, /3Kk'd by Date
Subject D► AiA/A/nr Page of
...................... .. ............... ..HLA.?. i .G..: .... X .&S-MEA-1.. ?... ......6,6..:..w.
. .................. ... ... ... ' ... ..7.Y nE . IS.....S..C?.r.�.... ..
........................... ...... ...... ....................
.....
. ..... . ...... ...... ... ..... ...... ...... ...... : ...... : ...... ...... ...... .......
- '.Y E............. ...... Alt �A................
��.1.....................
.....
�N11..Qt......................................................................................
... ........................ ... ...
w ..... ...w.
.. .. .. ... .» :.1..11r7"'''''1e►fit..■�.�r.Gr�r:.f�.�.....:y.. »�.W..:...5». :.....:. ..
_ ... _ ... .0i YI-..1.A. , . - EA ... ... .....�`�..�..A� .5 F. ..
.. 4..... ..
_....
L11 D.SG,A.P.E.. 577...5...
-...
� .. .. i... 2.5. ®.. ....�nr c
.. ... .T.
_S..I
... ....... ........................
......... ........ ..... — ..... .....................
................ .. .. -
..._.... ... T.l.l�'I ....Q.F.....�.
,n/ C.E.i�.I..T..FZA.T..t Q..�1../.. _.�a�. .....
.SL..�... .. ...
.............. ... .............. ... ... X.I..C�. J.t..C.. ...StI.E. 1. ...E4C?��/..:... ..Z.` .. �D.'.
..rD..j#... ...............
....................... .. ... ...
a .i. F k�... ' .. ... .....7. s
.. . .5>-.t, �.o...
�O.S.3.....
... ... .................... ... ... .............
.... .L.L?.1•til.... ....... .. ... ......sr? ?.
.. ....r..0Y. .. ....
.H.�i.�.t.p.1.F.�tl......f.l.. �..�.
O..�S3.........
... PrZ C. �. p�.T. T.i.QN. - .. .. .. .. .. ... ...
................ ......
-.... ...... .........
... ...:.:.y.� ............................................ ........ ..... ........ .. ...... .... ......
...... ...... .............
w• •• .••
w� l��•.�•w••w\••••W.w t w •i.M;M� i.•ww•www w w• •.• w • ••......w • w
w••j.w• w • w...
_... .................... ..._..................
..._... _T.Z.. ' ...55.. ' .... ..._.................... ...-... _ ...--7......................
... .3c.AAIZ... ET1 07SLI N
..........
................... 1.....[........
..............
.............. .............. ............
�1.1 s Tr�tL.r .:...[ .can .���.�..cNs................ :............ .............
........ .........
.............................. ..............................
............ ..... Q . .. _ ...._.... .. ....................................................................
_...?.
................. ... ...
SOU. =.. �0 MK..... ..........
............. ... .............
......
) L/ E t_ oP Cp:�jl TJ./"`�1 S _.
. ............
........................ .. ... ... ..
.. .. ... .................... .. .i. ......................................................... ... ....................
�. ....... ..;�.. ..
................ ...........
... .............
.. .....
.
.. .. ... ... ... .25. ...
... ... ...
.. ... ........................... ...
:. :
............... ....... :.............................. ......:.......
�. GF
_
923 Cooper Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Telephone: (970) 945-8676 • Fax: (970) 945-2555
98081.01
Lots 7-9, Block2 - Oklahoma Flats
Aspen, Colorado
DRAINAGE STUDY
9/23/98
1. EXISTING TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow
Description .....................
Manning's n ..................... 0.4000
Flow Length ..................... 50.0000 ft
Two Yr, 24 hr Rainfall .......... 1.4000 in
Land Slope ...................... 0.0400 ft/ft
Computed Sheet flow time .......................> 0.2355 hrs
Shallow Concentrated Flow
Description .....................
Surface ......................... Unpaved
Flow Length ..................... 75.0000 ft
Watercourse Slope ............... 0.0533 ft/ft
Velocity ........................ 3.7249 fps
Computed Shallow flow time .....................> 0.0056 hrs
***************************
Total Time of Concentration .........................> 0.2411 hrs
2. PROPOSED TIME OF CONCENTRATION
Sheet Flow
Description .....................
Manning's n ..................... 0.2400
Flow Length ..................... 50.0000 ft
Two Yr, 24 hr Rainfall .......... 1.4000 in
Land Slope ...................... 0.0400 ft/ft
Computed Sheet flow time .......................> 0.1565 hrs
Shallow Concentrated Flow
-------------------------
Description .....................
Surface ......................... Unpaved
Flow Length ..................... 75.0000 ft
Watercourse Slope ............... 0.0530 ft/ft
Velocity ........................ 3.7144 fps
Computed Shallow flow time .....................> 0.0056 hrs
***************************
Total Time of Concentration .........................> 0.1621 hrs
3. EXISTING RUNOFF
TR-55 Tabular Hydrograph Method
Input Summary
Description .....................
EXISTING CONDITIONS-9808 1.01 LOTS 7-9 OKLAHOMA FLATS- 100 YR
Rainfall Distribution ........... Type 11
la/P Interpolation .............. On
Total Area ...................... 0.0005 mi2
Peak Time ....................... 12.20 hrs,
Peak Flow ....................... 0.0435 cfs
Given Input Data:
--------- --
Subarea Area CN Tc Tt Rainfall
Description (mi2) (hrs) (hrs) (in)
EXISTING SITE 0.0005 66 0.2411 0.0000 2.20
4. PROPOSED RUNOFF
TR-55 Tabular Hydrograph Method
Input Summary
Description .....................
PROPOSED CONDITIONS-98081.01 LOTS 7-9 OKLAHOMA FLATS-25 YR
Rainfall Distribution ........... Type 11
la/P Interpolation .............. On
Total Area ...................... 0.0005 mi2
Peak Time ....................... 12.2000 hrs,
Peak Flow ....................... 0.2591 cfs
Given Input Data:
Subarea Area CN Tc Tt Rainfall
Description (mi2) (hrs) (hrs) (in)
--------------
EXISTING SITE 0.0005 81 0.1621 0.0000 2.20
5. PROPOSED REQUIRED DETENTION
Basin Output
Pond Name .......................
Distribution Type ............... Type 11
Frequency Type .................. 100 years
Area ............................ 13250.0000 ft2
Peak Inflow ..................... 0.3657 cfs
Peak Outflow .................... 0.0941 cfs
Runoff .......................... 1.0143 in
Runoff Volume ................... 1120.3968 ft3
Storage Volume .................. 458.1616 ft3
98081.01
Lots 7-9, Block2 - Oklahoma Flats
Aspen, Colorado
DRAINAGE STUDY
9/23/98
3. EXISTING RUNOFF-25 YEAR
TR-55 Tabular Hydrograph Method
Input Summary
Description .....................
EXISTING CONDITIONS-98081.01 LOTS 7-9 OKLAHOMA FLATS-100 YR
Rainfall Distribution ........... Type II
Ia/P Interpolation .............. On
Total Area ...................... 0.0005 mi2
Peak Time ....................... 12.20 hrs
Peak Flow ....................... 0.0435 cfs
Given Input Data:
Subarea Area CN Tc
Tt Rainfall
Description (mi2) (hrs)
— — ----------
(hrs) (in)
------ -------- —
EXISTING SITE 0.0005 66 0.2411
0.0000 2.20
4. PROPOSED RUNOFF-25 YEAR
TR-55 Tabular Hydrograph Method
Input Summary
Description .....................
PROPOSED CONDITIONS-98081.01 LOTS 7-9 OKLAHOMA FLATS-25 YR
Rainfall Distribution ........... Type 11
Ia/P Interpolation .............. On
Total Area ...................... 0.0005 mi2
Peak Time ....................... 12.2000 hrs
Peak Flow ....................... 0.2591 cfs
Given Input Data:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subarea Area CN Tc
Tt Rainfall
Description (mi2) (hrs)
(hrs) (in)
— -----
----- --- ------ — — ---------------------------------------------------
EXISTING SITE 0.0005 81 0.1621
0.0000 2.20
o rn
o
co
00 M
o N
CL
U)
CD O
of ao
O
3
0
m
O
O
F-
c c
Y
U
S I
C C C C� 6U
U
4) 4)
>
O Imo- O O N
U
O v 1-- O h
0
O N 4t O M t•
N N
p 3
CO CO to N 00 O
U
��
�'Nr''cocoo�
N
3
0
O O O O M O
04)
O O O MLr)
`�- (%)
O
O �+
> U
3 °
co co co co to to
Lo ui Lo ui Uri U)
ocn
�O .0
C
O O
> U
.O
O to ti 04 00
U
O ti
w >
LO � N V
O
�O j
'ITM M N �- O
NM U
ti (D O'CT M N
C) O O P f` rM
>
a
N'�
N M V U-)co
>
10
E
E
�C
E
m
E
0
A
L
1402
i.
s
t-
ATTACHUM
Nl k H444 ' ktAy
• � i=l.roDldprY• ��fGD -
('tbp vr- 4WC)4
DI
�L T
-.o
-o
Andrew Antipas Ecological &
Environmental Consulting, LLC
Glenn Horn, AICP
Davis Horn, Inc.
215 S. Monarch
Suite 104
Aspen, CO 81611
Reference: Elden Residence
Riparian and Wetland Investigations
Dear Mr. Horn,
ATT 2.
On September 22 I visited the Elden residence located at 725 and 727 Bay St.
Aspen, Colorado. The proposed project is to remodel the existing duplex located
along the Roaring Fork River. Based on information provided by your office,
this structure was constructed in the early 1970's.
I have reviewed Aspen City Planning Code Section 26.68.040, and this project is
consistent with the Stream Margin regulations. No construction is proposed for
the river side of the structure except for modifying the existing landscaping and
patio area with flagstone. Construction on the north side of the structure is to
increase living space, which would impact the landscaped and manicured yard.
Photos of the front and back yards are attached to this letter for reference.
Status of the Riparian Plant Community
The proposed home improvements will not impact riparian vegetation in the
project area. The riparian plant community in the project area was modified
when the homes were constructed in the 1970's. On the river side of the home
there are large cottonwood trees.
These trees were on site when the home was constructed. However, the home
owners have integrated them into their landscape design. There is little
additional vegetation along the river. This condition is most likely maintained
by the homeowners so they can view the river from their patios. It is my
understanding that the proposed home improvements will not involve the
removal of the existing cottonwoods along the river.
On the north side of the home there are mature aspens, cottonwoods, and blue
spruce. Some of these trees might have been on site prior to construction while
others may have been added to the site. The landscaping on the north side of
the home is carefully maintained and no longer has the components consistent
with riparian plant communities in the Rocky Mountains.
0285 Crystal Circle, Carbondale, CO 81623 970-963-8297 aantipas0sopris.net
Wetland Investigation
No wetlands were observed in, the project area. The routine criteria as described
in the Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987) was utilized for the investigation. The 1987 manual utilizes
the three parameters of vegetation, soils, and hydrology to identify wetlands.
No wetland vegetation or wetland hydrology was observed in the project area.
The Roaring Fork River in the project area has a well defined bed and bank,
which is not conducive to the formation of palustrine emergent or shrub
dominated wetlands which are typical along rivers.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide ecological services for Davis -Horn,
Inc. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours, ,
r
Andrew Antipas, manager
`•:':�`- -• ;y , `..� � . i yi S, ' d ►•"s��ln L': /• .y �, l l .: J!i ✓ 4,ry� ,/
11 a .x\,'`1,'� �• �' eye_ tifY`- t t -�•• i. "'.•Y i�f{ �.
.�L; }�' •' ^ ^.�' .►��. � 1 �• 1' ,��] -.yam., 1. �* / �J. s.
ti
'. ir " y •,•'
1l. l :1 � � 1 YC � '•• 1 Yu�'i f 1i�1�J i. • • � .
-.r.<'•- i .. . ✓t r.d 1•'. I .l •, t •�� �• �)e 'lF, � •. ' � 1 tf,'l,'
0 n
.- ,. ,4,�•�" , rim / _, ,.' � ^' _ _.
ga
WOOPM
' -- - 1y
yL • jt- �J _
• .. •��-f'Tiff+ .1� � -.i4 1 \Y - i1(,R��i-.. ����
ell -
ON
/ f
it•
r
` n
�\ w
Sep-24-98 09:03A yusem horn
4r
970.925 5I80
P.02
• i 1 Iq1 0' 1 1 1 M• a Wd
AVMment for Payment of City of Aspen Development Appfication Fees
(Plese Print Clearly)
CITY CF ASPSN (hereinR, C. V, ,, f. J
0 AI'PLIC,� G� AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICjANT has sum to = m app►licadon for . art'r ��.A r • _t'-'1 n
f -�,e- ; e (hmeiamftelr, THE PROJEC71 .
:kPPLIC+AINT and=sumufs and agr= tba City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 199h�
establishes a Yee suuc:nire :or land use 3aplicauons had the payment of ail processing :M is a
condition precedent :o a dere:mivarion of appiic=d0n completcness.
,-�PPLIC.ANT =d Cif agr=- d= because cif the size.: rt:�re or scopeof :he proposed
proles*., it is not possible at this time to ascertain the toil extent of the costs involved processing
the a. DDlicatiom APPLIC.A.Yr Sad CTY :Luther agree that it is in the inte-M-33t of TLhe parties to allow
.VPLICAINTT to make aavmt=L Of fta initiai deposit and to dher= ter permit addidohai 4osts to he
biUed to �pvr :C. �tT on s onthly basis..�PP C.�N'i aar'ees he �,vill be benedred by -e using
gzeater cash liquidity and ` ill :Hake additional payments upon notiiicadon by the C'T'`: when r ev
are necessary as Losts are inc'. rma. C17f =eeS trough the ate:' --2=T=tv �I
recovering its ;oil costs to process APPLIC,UNTS appdcatson.
4. CTY and .�Pl'LICAN i mew agree Char it is irnmmeti ie for CI"I'Y ;ram to cgnlpiete
processing or present sufc;= inrorusaaon to the Planning Connnission and/or City Council to
enable the Planning Commission and/or City. Council to make ienally wired fi.ndinQs for project
approval, unless c'srreat biding are paid in `ull prior To decision.
Therefore. AP-'LIC a.:v 1 agre% -.bat in Zonsideration of the C=3 waiver of :ts 'Lighc to
collect full fees prior to a c ze inazion. of application co=leteness, APPLICANT shall pay an
initial deposit m the amount of S which is for hours of Playing staff time, and if
=tLMI recorded costs exceed the initial deposit—VPLICANI T shall pay additional monthly billings
to CITY to reimburse the = f.br the processes of the applicadon mentioned above. including
post approval review. Such poriodic payments shall be made lv hin 30 clays of the. billing daze.
APPLICANT firtther xgees thot fail= to pav such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension
of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN APPUCAJNT
Signature:
Stan auso Date:
Community Development Director Printed Name:
City of Aspen vl:dHng Address:
`i /7-4 / 9 S' -
cd k J 4e n
,uC� ► 4f
Sep-24-98 O9:O3A yusem
f
horn
970 925 5180
September 24, 1998
Richard Elden
2430 Lake Avenue
Chicago r Illinois
60614
Chris Bendon
City of Aspen
Community Development Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Elden Duplex Stream Margin Review
Dear Chris:
This letter authorizes Davis Horn Incorporated to prepare a land
use application for a Stream Margin Review for my duplex located at
725/727 Bay Street, Aspen. Davis Horn Incorporated may also
represent me in the City land use approval process.
Please contact me at 312-739-2149 if you have any questions.
sincerely,
Richard Elden
Account Mine? Twn? Blk/Lot Condo? Mobile? Sales? ❑
N Owner Name Ad dress
"'
R00 11
ELDEN RICHARD & GAIL M 112 IN
E31.259
Legal Des cri tlOn
Year
District
333 W WACKER DR STE# 1600
SUB:OKLAHOMA FLATS ADDITION BLK:2 LOT:7
1998
001
CHICAGO IL 60606-1226
& LOT:8 DESC: AND 9. BK:0664 PG:0706
Apr
St
BK:0775 PG:0632
ATT
A
Parcel Number
MH Space
Sequence
273707311002
Street No
Dir
No#
Street Name Type
.
V.:D_> ate
IQ
ApplVersion
725
BAY - ST
199a04Z900I ..:.:: ::t4�APR-98.
OtTPM
TM
,
Location City
?
Location Zip
Acct Type Lagt
Land Actual
Land Assessed
land AC/SF'>
ASPEN
81611
1000
t,600000
�;8ao
0.000
'
BACode Business
Name
Map No
Impry Actual
imp Assessed
Square Feet< <
269.300
26 20Q
; 5796
Administration Appraisal
Exempt Actuoi
Exempt Assess
New::Version
d 0
1.9980608000
1 Names
2 Situs Address
Total Actual
Total Assess
- 3 Mobile Home
1,$69300
4
Tract/Section
5
Condominiums
6
Block & Lot
7
Book & Page/Sales
8
Miscellaneous
9
Tax Items
10
Pre/Succeed
Current Year
Prior Version
Go To Imaging
..X
Prior Year
Next Version
Abatement
Next Year
Clerk's Doc's
Q
Update
Clear
Exit
T,
y [4-C
1.
MASTER
LEGALDATA
SEQUENCE VERSTARTI VEREND
1 11 19980429001?9999999999
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
620 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 925-3577
Fax: (970) 925-1384
April 28, 1998
Richard and Gall Elden
333 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60606-1226
ti
Re: Order No. 00024292
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Elden,
Stewart Title is pleased to provide you with your Title Insurance Policy.
Please examine it carefully. Your original policy should be kept in a -
safe place with your other real estate documents. Should you find any
discrepancy or have any questions, please feel free to call our Title
Department at (970) 925-3577, and refer to your Order Number referenced
above.
When you are ready to sell or refinance, remember that it is your decision
as to which title company to use. You can save up to 50% on your next
policy (if issued within five years of the date of this policy) by using
Stewart Title again.
We maintain a file on this property including your Title Policy and we will
be able to provide you with prompt, efficient service should you have any
other title insurance needs. Our staff is committed to superior service and
customer satisfaction.
Thank you for allowing us to be of service to yowl
Sincerely,
Gam.,
ar !a Poutous
President
En c .
ALTA OWNER'S POLICY - 10-17-92
POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE ISSUED BY
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE CONTAINED
IN SCHEDULE B AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS, STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a
Texas corporation, herein called the Company, insures, as of Date of Policy shown in Schedule A. against loss or damage
not exceeding the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, sustained or incurred by the insured by reason of:
1. Title to the estate or interest described in Schedule A being vested other than as stated therein;
2. Any defect in or lien or encumbrance on the title;
3. Unmarketability of the title;
4. Lack of a right of access to and from the land.
The Company will also pay the costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in defense of the title, as insured, but only
to the extent provided in the Conditions and Stipulations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Stewart Title Guaranty Company has caused this policy to be signed and sealed by its
duly authorized officers as of the Date of Policy shown in Schedule A.
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
LE
ro
Chairman of the Boa
�i 1908 0
Countersigned: *rfX*
Authorized Countersignature Peter Delany
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN, INC.
Agent ID #06011A
President
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs,
attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of:
1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building and zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations)
restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location
of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or
any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or
governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting
from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.
(b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or a notice of a
defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date
of Policy.
2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not
excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value
without knowledge.
3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant;
(b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in
writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy;
(e) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or
(e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the estate or interest insured
by this policy.
4. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the Insured the estate or interest insured by this policy, by reason of the operation
of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws; that is based on:
(a) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(b) the transaction creating the estate or interest insured by this policy being deemed a preferential transfer except where the preferential
transfer results from the failure: (i) to timely record the instrument of transfer; or (ii) of such recordation to impart notice to a purchaser for
value or a judgment or lien creditor.
_-... JGiIYl No. 0-9701 is 28
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS
1. DEFINITION OF TERMS.
The following terms when used in this policy mean:
(a) "insured": the insured named in Schedule A, and, subject to any rights or defenses the Company would have had against the
A- insured, those who succeed to the interest of the named insured by operation of law as distinguished from purchase including, but not
...,ated to, heirs, distributees, devisees, survivors, personal representatives, next of kin, or corporate or fiduciary successors.
(b) "insured claimant": an insured claiming loss or damage.
(e) "knowledge" or "known": actual knowledge, not constructive knowledge or notice which may be imputed to an insured by reason
of the public records as defined in this policy or any other records which impart constructive notice of matters affecting the land:
(d) "land": the land described or referred to in Schedule A, and improvements affixed thereto which by law constitute real property.
The term "land" does not include any property beyond the lines of the area described or referred to in Schedule A, nor any right, title,
interest, estate or easement in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways or waterways, but nothing herein shall modify or limit
the extent to which a right of access to and from the land is insured by this policy.
(e) "mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust deed, or other security instrument.
(f) "public records": records established under state statutes at Date of Policy for the purpose of imparting constructive notice of
matters relating to real property to purchasers for value and without knowledge. With respect to Section I (a) (iv) of the Exclusions From
Coverage, "public records" shall also include environmental protection liens filed in the records of the clerk of the United States district
court for the district in which the land is located.
(g) "unmarketability of the title": an alleged or apparent matter affecting the title to the land, not excluded or excepted from coverage,
which would entitle a purchaser of the estate or interest described in Schedule A to be released from the obligation to purchase by virtue of
a contractual condition requiring the delivery of marketable title.
2. CONTINUATION OF INSURANCE AFTER CONVEYANCE OF TITLE.
The coverage of this policy shall continue in force as of Date of Policy in favor of an insured only so long as the insured retains an
estate or interest in the land, or holds an indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given by a purchaser from the insured,
or only so long as the insured shall have liability by reason of covenants of warranty made by the insured in any transfer or conveyance
of the estate or interest. This policy shall not continue in force in favor of any purchaser from the insured of either (i) an estate or interest
in the land, or (ii) an indebtedness secured by a purchase money mortgage given to the insured.
3. NOTICE OF CLAIM TO BE GIVEN BY INSURED CLAIMANT.
The insured shall notify the Company promptly in writing (i) in case of any litigation as set forth in Section 4(a) below, (ii) in case
iowledge shall come to an insured hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is adverse to the title to the estate or interest, as
sured, and which might cause loss or damage for which the Company may be liable by virtue of this policy, or (iii) if title to the estate
ur interest, as insured, is rejected as unmarketable. If prompt notice shall not be given to the Company, then as to the insured all liability
of the Company shall terminate with regard to the matter or matters for which prompt notice is required; provided, however, that failure.
to notify the Company shall in no case prejudice the rights of any insured under this policy unless the Company shall be prejudiced by
the failure and then only to the extent of the prejudice.
4. DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION OF ACTIONS; DUTY OF INSURED CLAIMANT TO COOPERATE.
(a) Upon written request by the insured and subject to the options contained in Section 6 of these Conditions and Stipulations, the
Company, at its own cost and without unreasonable delay, shall provide for the defense of an insured in litigation in which any third party
asserts a claim adverse to the title or interest as insured, but only as to those stated causes of action alleging a defect, lien or
encumbrance or other matter insured against by this policy. The Company shall have the right to select counsel of its choice (subject to the
right of the insured to object for reasonable cause) to represent the insured as to those stated causes of action and shall not be liable for and
will not pay the fees of any other counsel. The Company will not pay any fees, costs or expenses incurred by the insured in the defense of
those causes of action which allege matters not insured against by this policy.
(b) The Company shall have the right, at its own cost, to institute and prosecute any action or proceeding or to do any other act which
in its opinion may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest, as insured, or to prevent or reduce loss or damage
to the insured. The Company may take any appropriate action under the terms of this policy, whether or not it shall be liable hereunder,
and shall not thereby concede liability or waive any provision of this policy. If the Company shall exercise its rights under this paragraph, it
shall do so diligently.
(c) Whenever the Company shall have brought an action or interposed a defense as required or permitted by the provisions of this
policy, the Company may pursue any litigation to final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right,
in its sole discretion, to appeal from any adverse judgment or order.
(d) In all cases where this policy permits or requires the Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of any action or proceed-
ing, the insured shall secure to the Company the right to so prosecute or provide defense in the action or proceeding, and all appeals
therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, the name of the insured for this purpose. Whenever requested by the Company, the
insured, at the Company's expense, shall give the Company all reasonable aid (i) in any action or proceeding, securing evidence, obtaining
witnesses, prosecuting or defending the action or proceeding, or effecting settlement, and (ii) in any other lawful act which in the opinion
of the Company may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest as insured. If the Company is prejudiced by the
failure of the insured to furnish the required cooperation, the Company's obligations to the insured under the policy shall terminate,
including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation, with regard to the matter or matters requiring such
cooperation.
e
ALTA OWNER'S POLICY
SCHEDULE A
Order Number: 00024292 Policy No.: 0-9701-34728 .
Date,of Policy: April 150, 1998 at 4:25 P.M.
Amount of Insurance: $ 2 , 580, 000.00
1. Name of Insured:
RICHARD ELDEN AND GAIL M. ELDEN
2. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this policy is:
FEE SIMPLE
3. Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in:
RICHARD ELDEN AND GAIL M. ELDEN
4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows:
See Attached Legal Description
SCHEDULE A
Order Number: 00024292
LEGAL DESCRIP77ON
PARCEL A:
An undivided fifty percent (50%) interest in and to Lots 7, 8
and 9, Block 2, Oklahoma Flats Addition to the City of Aspen,
together with an exclusive right to use the East Apartment Unit
contained in the building located thereon as defined and
described in the Declaration of Restrictions appearing in Book
297 at Page 664.
PARCEL B:
An undivided fifty percent (50%) interest in and to Lots 7, 8
and 9, Block 2, Oklahoma Flats Addition to the City of Aspen,
together with an exclusive right to use the West Apartment Unit
contained in the building located thereon as defined and
described in the Declaration of Restrictions appearing in Book
297 at Page 664.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
9. LIlVIITATION OF LIABILITY.
(a) If the Company establishes the tide, or removes the alleged defect, lien or encumbrance, or cuss the lack of a right of access to or from the land, or cures the
claim marketability of tide, all as insured, in a reasonably diligent manner by any method, including litigation and the completion of any appeals therefrom, it shall
havi irformed its obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be liable for any 1ordamage caused thereby.
nsentfor lost or dams until
twy In the evert of any litigation, including litigation by the Companyor with the Company's co, the Company shall have no liability ss
there has been a final determination by a court of competent jurisdiction, and disposition of all appeals therefrom, adverse to the title as insured.
(c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or damage to any insured for liability voluntarily assumed by the insured in settling any claim or suit without the prior
written consent of the Company.
10. REDUCTION OF INSURANCE; REDUCTION OR TERMINATION OF LIABILITY.
ments made for costs, attorney.'
All payments under this policy, except payfees and expenses, shall reduce the amount of the insurance pro tanto•
11. LL431LITY NONCUMULATIVE.
It is expressly understood that the amount of insurance under this policy shall be reduced by any amount the Company may pay under any policy insuring a mortgage
to which exception is taken in Schedule B or to which the insured has agreed, assumed, or taken subject, or which is hereafter executed by an insured and which is a
charge or lien on the estate or interest described or referred to in Schedule A, and the amount so paid shall be deemed a payment under this policy to the insured owner.
12. PAYMENT OF LOSS.
(a) No payment shall be made without producing this policy for endorsement of the payment unless the policy has been lost or destroyed, in which case proof of loss
or destruction shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Company.
(b) When liability and the extent of loss or damage has been definitely fixed in accordance with these Conditions and Stipulations, the loss or damage shall be payable
within 30 days thereafter.
13. SUBROGATION UPON PAYMENT OR SETTLEMENT.
(a) The Company's Right of Subrogation.
Whenever the Company shall have settled and paid a claim under this policy, all right of subrogation shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of the insured
claimant.
The Company shall be subrogatied to and be entitled to all rights and remedies which the insured claimant would have had against any person or property in
respect to the claim had this policy not been issued. If requested by the Company, the insured claimant shall transfer to the Company all rights and remedies against any
person or property necessary in order to perfect this right of subrogation. The insured claimant shall permit the Company to sue, compromise or settle in the name of the
insured claimant and to use the name of the insured claimant in any transaction or litigation involving these rights or remedies.
If a payment on account of a claim does not fully cover the loss of the insured claimant, the Company shall be subrogated to these rights and remedies in the
pl, •n which the Company's P an ' payment bears to the whole amount of the loss.-.
pass should result from any act of the insured claimant,' as stated above; that act shall not void this policy, but the Company, in that event, shall be required to pay
only gnat part of any losses insured against by this policy which shall exceed the amount, if any, lost to the Company by reason of the impairment by the insured claimant
of the Company's right of subrogation.
(b) The Company's Rights Against Non-insured Obligors.
The Company's right of subrogation against non-insured obligors shall exist and shall include, without limitation, the rights of the insured to indemnities, guaranties,
other policies of insurance or bonds, notwithstanding any terms or conditions contained in those instruments which provide for subrogation rights by reason of this policy.
14. ARBITRATION
Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the Company or the insured may demand arbitration pursuant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the American
Arbitration Association. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the insured arising out of or relating
to this policy, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation. All arbitrable matters when the Amount
of Insurance is $1,000,000 or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the insured. All arbitrable matters when the Amount of Insurance is in excess
of $1,000,000 shall be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company and the insured. Arbitration pursuant to this policy and under the Rules in effect on the date
the demand for arbitration is made or, at the option of the insured, the Rules in effect at Date of Policy ehhall be binding upon the parties. The award may include
attorneys' fees only if the laws of the state in which the land is located permit a court to award attorneys' fees to a prevailing party. Judgment upon the award rendered
by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
The law of the sites of the land shall apply to an arbitration under the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules.
A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the Company upon request.
15. LIABILITY LIMITED TO THIS POLICY; POLICY ENTIRE CONTRACT.
(a) This policy together with all endorsements, if any, attached hereto by the Company is the entire policy and contract between the insured and the Company. In
interpreting any provision of this policy, this policy shall be construed as a whole.
(b) Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based on negligence, and which arises out of the status of the title to the estate or interest covered hereby or by any
action asserting such claim, shall be restricted to this policy.
(c) No amendment of or endorsement to this policy can be made except by a writing endorsed hereon or attached hereto signed by either the President, a Vice
President, the Secretary, an Assistant Secretary, or validating officer or authorized signatory of the Company-
1 I SEVERABILITY.
z the event any provision of the policy is held invalid or unenforceable under applicable law, the policy shall be deemed not to include that provision and all other
,ions shall remain in full force and effect.
17. _ NOTICES, WHERE SENT.
All notices required to be given the Company and any statement in writing required to be furnished the Company shall include the number of this policy and shall
be addressed to the Company at P.O. Box 2029, Houston, Texas 77252-2029. STEWART
TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS Caothmed
S. lr OF LOSS OR DAMAGE.
...s addition to and after the notices required under Section 3 of these Conditions and Stipulations have been provided the Company, a proof of loss or damage signed
and sworn to by the insured claimant shall be furnished to the Company within 90 days after the insured claimant shall ascertain the facts giving rise to the loss or damage.
The proof of loss or damage shall describe the defect in, or lien or encumbrance on the title, or other matter insured against by this policy which constitutes the basis of
loss or damage and shall state, to the extent possible, the basis of calculating the amount of the loss or damage. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure of the insured
claimant to provide the required proof of loss or damage, the Company's obligations to the insured under the policy shall terminate, including any liability or obligation
to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation, with regard to the matter or matters requiring such proof of loss or damage.
In addition, the insured claimant may reasonably be required to submit to examination under oath by any authorized representative of the Company and shall
produce for examination, inspection and copying, at such reasonable times and places as may be designated by any authorized representative of the Company, all records,
books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda, whether bearing a date before or after Date of Policy, which reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further,
if requested by any authorized representative of the Company, the insured claimant shall grant its permission, in writing, for any authorized representative of the Company
to examine, inspect and copy all records, books, ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda in the custody or control of a third party, which reasonably pertain to
the loss or damage. All information designated as confidential by the insured claimant provided to the Company pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed to others
unless, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, it is necessary in the administration of the claim. Failure of the insured claimant to submit for examination under oath,
produce other reasonably requested information or grant permission to secure reasonably necessary information from third parties as required in this paragraph stall
terminate any liability of the Company under this policy as to that claim.
6. OPTIONS TO PAY OR OTHERWISE SETTLE CLAIMS; TERMINATION OF LIABILITY.
In case of a claim under this policy, the Company shall have the following additional options:
(a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of Insurance.
To pay or tender payment of the amount of insurance under this policy together with any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant, which
were authorized by the Company, up to the time of payment or tender of payment and which the company is obligated to pay.
Upon the exercise by the Company of this option, all liability and obligations to the insured under this policy, other than to make the payment required, shall
terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute, or continue any litigation, and the policy shall be surrendered to the Company for cancellation.
(b) To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parries Other than the Insured or With the Insured Claimant.
(i) to pay or otherwise settle with other patties for or in the name of an insured claimant any claim insured against under this policy, together with any costs,
vs' fees and expenses incurred by the insured claimant which were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and which the Company is obligated to
(u) to pay or otherwise settle with the insured claimant the loss or damage provided for under this policy, together with any costs, attorneys' fees and expenses
incurred by the insured claimant which were authorized by the Company up to the time of payment and which the Company is obligated to pay.
Upon the exercise by the Company of either of the options provided for in paragraphs (b)(i) or (ii), the Company's obligations to the insured under this policy for the
claimed loss or damage, other than the payments required to be made, shall terminate, including any liability or obligation to defend, prosecute or continue any litigation.
7. DETERMINATION, EXTENT OF LIABILITY AND COINSURANCE.
This policy is a contract of indemnity against actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred by the insured claimant who has suffered loss or damage by mason
of matters insured against by this policy and only to the extent herein described.
(a) The liability of the Company under this policy shall not exceed the least of-
(i) the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A; or,
(u) the difference between the value of the insured estate or interest as insured and the value of the insured estate or interest subject to the defect, lien or encum
brance insured against by this policy.
(b) In the event the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A at the Date of Policy is less than 80 percent of the value of the insured estate or interest or the ful'
consideration paid for the land, whichever is less, or if subsequent to the Date of Policy an improvement is erected on the land which increases the value of the insurer
estate or interest by at least 20 percent over the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A, then this Policy is subject to the following:
(i) where no subsequent improvement has been made, as to any partial loss, the Company shall only pay the loss pro rate in the proportion that the amount o`
insurance at Date of Policy bears to the total value of the insured estate or interest at Date of Policy; or
(u) where a subsequent improvement has been made, as to any partial loss, the Company shall only pay the loss pro rata in the proportion that 120 percent of the
Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A bears to the sum of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A and the amount expended for the improvement.
The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to costs, attorneys' fees and expenses for which the Company is liable under this policy, and shall only apply to tha,
portion of any loss which exceeds, in the aggregate, 10 percent of the Amount of Insurance stated in Schedule A.
(c) The Company will pay only those costs, attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in accordance with Section 4 of these Conditions and Stipulations.
8. APPORTIONMENT.
If the land described in Schedule A consists of two or more parcels which are not used as a single site, and a loss is established affecting one or more of the parcel
' • not all, the loss shall be computed and settled on a pro rata basis as if the amount of insurance under this policy was divided pro rats, as to the value on Date of Polic.
ch separate parcel to the whole, exclusive of any improvements made subsequent to Date of Policy, unless a liability or value has otherwise been agreed upon as t<
• parcel by the Company and the insured at the time of the issuance of this policy and shown by an express statement or by an endorsement attached to this policy
(continued and concluded on last page of this policy)
(ALTA Owner's Policy
tmORSF.MENT FORM 110.1 (Rev. 5/95)
ENDORSEMENT ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART
OF POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE
SERIAL NUMBER O- 9701-34728 ISSUED BY
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
HEREIN CALLED THE COMPANY
Order No.: 00024292
Said Policy is hereby amended by deleting paragraphs 1 THROUGH 4 , inclusive, of Schedule B.
This endorsement is made a part of the policy and is subject to all of the terms and provisions thereof and of
any prior endorsements thereto. Except to -the extent expressly stated, it neither modifies any of the terms and
provisions_ of the policy and any prior endorsements, nor does it extend the effective date of the policy and any
prior endorsements, nor does it increase the face amount thereof.
Signed under seal for the Company, but this endorsement is to be valid only when it bears an
authorized countersignature.
Countersigned:
Authoriz Countersignature
STEWART TMLE OF ASPEN, INC.
Agent ID #06011 A
CEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
Serial No. E-9851-40528
President
Continuation of Schedule 9 - ALTA Owner's Policy
Policy Numbers 0-9701-34728
ALTA OWNER'S POLICY
SCHEDULE B
Order Number: 00024292
Policy No.: o-9701-34728
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses)
which arise by reason of.,
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. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, and any facts which a correct
survey and inspection of the premises would disclose and which are 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.
S. Unpatented mining claims; reservations or exceptions in patents, or an act authorizing the issuance thereof;
water rights claims or title to water.
6. Taxes and Assessments for the year 1998, not yet due and payable, and
subsequent years and any special assessments not yet certified on the tax
rolls of Pitkin County.
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 as
reserved in United States Patent, and any vein or lode or quartz or other
rock in place bearing. gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other
valuable deposits, which were claimed or known to exist on November 23, 1891,
all as reserved in United States Patent recorded December 14, 1900 in Book 39
at Page 136.
8. Terms, conditions and obligations as set forth in stipulation recorded August
21, 1973 in Book 279 at Page 168.
9. Terms, covenants, conditions, easements, restrictions, uses, limitations and
obligations as contained in Declaration of Restrictions, which also contained
a Right of First Refusal, recorded April 4, 1975 in Book 297 at Page 664.
10. This policy.does not insure title to land comprising the shores or bottoms of
rivers and is subject to any build up or loss of property along Roaring Fork
River, caused by the processes of accretion and reliction, or caused by man
made changes in the flow of water or in the course of the river bank or river
channel; also subject to the free and unobstructed flow of the water of said
river, and recreational or other use thereof.
11. Right of way for the use and maintenance of the existing power lines running
along the northerly boundary and crossing the northwest corner of the
property, as shown on survey by Alpine Surveys Job No. 86-138, updated
November, 1997.
Continued on next page
ATTACHMT
5`14 J ��
it •c s �'
OD
,A
�/ ' W
j �� �� S. R. IG1 A�' ��
I cn
R
S.
7 S o L ST
O �
W
`
M
Ag EN o a M i
•�P\ EpKE AV.' Q m � MIS n
`s 1 y
s
F A 1 Y
3 Q �' , N N o 5tt+ S'
st
SM EEK
' a "� CR --�•'
i 3 0
3• w � 3 ,
KY 7 1
A51LE ti
i
W /-•
Ito
ql Tq
OD
• J W � i' ]G i �
ArrW 17
CITY OF ASPEN
PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
I CANNER: Chris Bendon, 920.5072 DATE: 8.26.98
PROJECT: 727 Bay Street Stream Margin Review
REPRESENTATIVE: Glenn Horn, AICP
Warren Palmer, Architect
OWNER: Richard Elden
TYPE OF APPLICAWN: one step
DESCRIPTION: Redevelopment of duplex on Bay Street, O.K: Flats. Residential Design Review and
waivers if necessary. Full Stream Margin is required because property is within the special
flood hazard area.
Land Use Code Section(s)
26.28.080 R-30 Zone District
26.52 Procedure
26.68.040 Stream Margin Review
26.58 Residential Design Standards
Review by: Staff for completeness; P&Z for Stream Margin Review and any res. design waivers.
Public Hearing: No, for Stream Margin Review. Yes, for design variances - 5 day posting requirement only.
Referral Agencies: Engineering, Parks, Fire Marshall, Water, ACSD, Building
Planning Fees: Planning Deposit Minor ($1080)
Referral Agency Fees: Engineering, Minor ($110);
tal Deposit: $1190 (additional hours are billed at a rate of $180/hour)
To apply, submit the following information:
1.
2.
3.
4
5.
6.
7.
8.
E
Proof of ownership.
Signed fee agreement.
Applicant's name, address and telephone number in a letter signed by the applicant which states the name,
address and telephone number of the representative authorized to act on behalf of the applicant.
Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting 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.
Total deposit for review of the application
20_ Copies of the complete application packet and maps.
HPC = 12; PZ = 10; GMC = PZ+5; CC = 7; Referral Agencies = 1/ea.; Planning Staff = 1
An 8 1/2" by I I" vicinity map locating the parcel within the City of Aspen.
Site improvement survey including topography and vegetation showing the current status, including all
easements and vacated rights of way, of the parcel certified by a registered land surveyor, licensed in the state of
Colorado. (This requirement, or any part thereof, may be waived by the Community Development Department if
the project is determined not to warrant a survey document.)
A written description of the proposal and an explanation in written, graphic, or model form of how the proposed
development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. Please include
existing conditions as well as proposed.
For Residential Proposals (Ord. 30):
a) Neighborhood block plan at 1 "=50' (available from City Engineering Department)
Graphically show the front portions of all existing buildings on both sides of the block and their setback
from the street in feet. Identify parking and front entry for each building and locate any accessory
a
dwelling units along the alley. Indicate whether any portions of the houses immediately adjacent to the
subject parcel are one story (only one living level).
b) Site plan at 1" = 10'. Show ground floors of all buildings on the subject parcel, as proposed,
and footprints of adjacent buildings for a distance of 100' from the side property lines. Show topography
of the subject site with 2' contours.
c) All building elevations at 1/8" = 1'-0.
d) Floor plans, roof plan, and elevations as needed to verify that the project meets or does not
meet the "Primary Mass" standard.
e) Photographic panorama. Show elevations of all buildings on both sides of the block,
including present condition of the subject property. Label photos and mount on a presentation board.
11. List of adjacent property owners within 300' for public hearing.
12. Copies of prior approvals.
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.
Notes:
The fire suppression system requirement is for structures of 5,000 gross square feet or greater. This is for each
structure and is not cumulative for the property.
tree relocation and/or removal requirements are for coniferous trees of over 16 feet in height, Gambles Oak
_h a 3" or larger diameter, and deciduous trees with a 6" or larger diameter. Contact the Parks Department
concerning the on -site replacement requirements. 920.5120.
The Stream Margin Review Criteria # 1 requires evidence of not increasing the base flood elevation. This
requires an engineering study. The applicant should also consider doing a drainage report at the same time.
ATTACHMENT
ELDON PROPERTY
LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS
WITHIN 300 FEET OF SUBJECT PARCEL
DRC Family Limited Partnership
1873 S. Bellaire St. #700
Denver CO 80222
Parcel #27370731001
Schedule #5550
James A. Morse Trust Parcel #27307310002
107 Sinclair Schedule #5420
Muskegan MI 49441 and Parcel #273707350001
Schedule #8629
Edward & Diana Van Deusen Family Trust Parcel #27370731004
233 N. Spring Street Schedule #8515
Aspen CO 81611
Ruth Hamilton Brown Parcel #273707308001
420 N. Spring Schedule #5380
Aspen CO 81611
Seymour Family Trust Parcel #273707373001
390 N. Spring Street Schedule #13164
Aspen CO 81611
Richard & Sue Volk Parcel #273 7073 73 002
2327 Mimosa Schedule #13165
Houston TX 77019
Howard & Pauline Mayer Parcel #273707307001
POB 333 Schedule #5438
Aspen CO 81612-03 3 3
Gerald & Christine Goldstein Parcel #273 7073 09003
POB 2045 Schedule #5368
Aspen CO 81612-2045
Branding Group Inc. Parcel #273707311005
POB 10637 Schedule #5419
Aspen CO 81612
Denice C. Reich Little River Rev. Trust Parcel #273707311006
1873 S. Bellaire #700 Schedule #15104
Denver CO 80222
TTAC !NT
Gail M. Gross Parcel #273 7073 11001
2700 Post Oak Blvd, # 1670 Schedule #5310
Houston TX 77056
Fraternal Order of Eagles
Parcel #273707350803
700 E. Bleeker Ave.
Schedule #13952
Aspen CO 81611
John L. Lancaster III
Parcel #273 7073 60007
901 Main St #6000
Schedule #9818
Dallas TX 75202
Higbie Family Trust
Parcel #273707360008
c/o Joan Metcalf
Schedule #9819
729 E. Bleeker St.
Aspen CO 81611
Jeffrey & Sandra Kallenberg
Parcel #273707360005
401 Market St., #500
Schedule #9820
Shreveport LA 71101
David Beckwith, Trust
Parcel #273707360006
c/o Foley & Lardner
Schedule #9821
777 E. Wisconsin Ave.
Milwaukee WI 53202
City of Aspen Parcel #273707350851
Asset Manager for Newbury Park Schedule #Unknown
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen CO 81611
( 1 O µ -
r
1.