Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.375 N Spring.A04003 .~ CASE NUMBER PARCEL ill # CASE NAME PRO.JECT ADDRESS PLANNER CASE TYPE OWNER/APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE DATE OF FINAL ACTION CITY COUNCIL ACTION PZ ACTION ADMIN ACTION BOA ACTION DATE CLOSED BY A040-03 2737 -073-10001 DCR FAMILY TRUST STREAM MARGIN REVIEW 375 N SPRING ST JAMES LINDT STREAM MARGIN REVIEW DENICE REICH SAME 8/22/03 Approved wI Condition 1 0/27/03 D DRISCOLL ~ ASPEN. PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D~PARTM~T PERMIT APPLlC. ATIO.N. PITKIN CO~' 0 CITY OF ASPEN m/..~ (':1.- 130 South Galena 970/920-5026 . .970/920-5090. . ..". ~I CY2 ~) Aspen, CO 81611 970/920-5532 Inspection Line 970/920-5448 Inspection Line PERMIT NO Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. JOB ADDRESS 1. 076 2. LEGAL. OESC. 3. 4. 5. DESIGNER 6. MAIL AODRESS MAIL ADDRESS CLASSj)F WORK . 7. iJH':I8N 0 ADDITION 0 ALTERATION 0 REPAIR 0 USE OF BUILDING 8. f2-.c25ld a~ Q --' VALUATIO~F WORK $ & SQUARE FOOTAGE 10.? p Is there food service in this building 0 YES 0 NO Is LPG used? 0 YES 0 NO Parcel 10# PRESUBMITIAL PLANS CHECKED . -I:PPROVED FOR ISSUANCE APPLICATION ACCEPTED BY DATE BY BY D~'$ DATE DATE NOTICE SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL. PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOV- ERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE . OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CON- STRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO REVIEW THE APPROVED PLANS AND ANY COMMENTS THAT ARE CONTAINED THEREON AND SEE THAT THE STRUCTURE A lOR PROJECT IS BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLlCA LE CO ' PRINTNA~ . < A /") . t<7 ~~~ C//~ SIGNATURE OF OWNER (IF OWNER BUILDER) (DATE) THIS FORM IS A PERMIT ONLY WHEN VALIDATED Energy Code Validation Plan Check Validation Zoning Validation ;:-/>>~ (0 SEE ATTACHEO SHEET) PHONE LICENSE NO PHONE PERMIT FEE 5D. Type of Construction Occupancy Group ~gfaF~g~~~n?t..) ..., .------. No. of Stories Occ. Load NO. OF BEDROOMS Use Zone Fire Sprinklers Required? 0 Yes 0 No EXISTING ADDED No. of Dwelling Units Alarm System Required? DYes DNa OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES Covered SPECIAL APPROVALS ZONING H.P.C. PARK OEDICATlON ENVIRO. HEALTH ENGINEERING PARKS NATURAL RESOURCES FIRE MARSHAL WATER TAP ASPEN CONSOL..SAN. DIST. OTHER 1 General Permit so CO_ DE ~ MS RF SN G.I.S. FEE N(A PAYMENT OF PITKIN COUNTY USE TAX o MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY RETURNS WILL BE SUBMITTED. o DEPOSIT METHOD .5% OF 25% OF THE PERMIT VALUATION PAID AT ISSUANCE. A FINAL REPORT ON TOTAL ACTUAL COST MUST BE FILED WITH IN 90 DAYS OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF WORK AND I OR ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. o EXEMPT: EXEMPT ORGANIZATION o RESALE: STATE & PITKIN COUNTRY RESALE NO. ANYONE WHO USES AND I OR CONSUMES BUILDING MATERIALS AND FIXTURES IN PITKIN COUNTY IS SUBJECT TO THE .5% USE TAX. PROPERTY LIENS MAY BE PLACED ON THE OWNER'S AND lOR THE CON- TRACTOR'S .PROPERTY WHEN USE TAX IS NOT PAID WORK STARTED WITH OUT PERMIT WILL BE DOUBLE FEE Permit Validation Use Tax Deposit Validation 6(J~ WHITE-FILE COPY CANARY-APPLICANT 08/25/2003 15:45 9709210295 aUG-25-2Q03 MON 12:08 pn . ..-... ~. i! . . . ROARING FORK FENCING FAX NO. .........c...n l~_206~ O+t=\' C- \(2 PAGE 02/02 .P. 02 *- All ~ a,VL ~ c~ 'llo ifc+O ~ "'", O/.Jvy,.{( . '.. () am .Ae.;.t (....y ~~ r t t I .l">'f.. ?NE?> ~~G fO .,_,,~ ?I ., ..- ..- ...- " ~IAf r l~~' } ~..--. .~~...,..,...' .' ---;...;. .-" .--.,-- ~ ._ _____. t r---. ......-~ . ./:' J....-.:--. . '"'. _-7 ,. .,.,..... '" ~.,~) -- ..- ...- .- 1 i. ~: .}. \ 3 .\ ~ . ,-.rL~.. - J "" s.c.'- f#.ab': SPRING STREET \< I I ~ , ~J'A 1}1 REce'VEu AUG 2 7 ?f1rn ASPtn BUR OIM~ nr.OIl (".",' .., 68/25/2883 15:46 97092 6296 ROARING FORK FENCING PAGE 131/82 o i9-02. 2Do 3 (j ~ ce- 8/25/03 I.. .. Attached you will find~the plot plan for 377 N.Spring. All trees will be three feet from the post . hole and six inches fr m the northem property line. All posts will be dug 32'1 into the ground . and set in concrete. . e first 24' of fence will be42" high, with the latter 100' will be 6' high. Mr. Lindt, If you have ar1Y que ons, please call. Thank You, . . ~'OJ- Karen Alciatore I I I ~ I , . ...L 050 Sunset Dr. Suite #6, Basalt, CO 81621 . 910-9T~294 1-800-111-1102 Fax: 910-921-fiEtEIVED 1 r I j t f AUG2 7 2003 A~PI:N BUILDING DEPARTMENT ~ . 1 " MEMORANDUM TO: Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director FROM: James Lindt, Planner JL 375 N. Spring Street Stream Margin Amendment Parcel # 2737-073-10-001 RE: DATE: August 13,2003 SUMMARY: The Applicant, DCR Family Limited Partnership, owns a property that contains a single- family residence and an ADU at 375 North Spring Street and would like to construct a six (6) foot tall, wood, privacy fence along the northern property line. Additionally, the Applicant would like to build up an area on the northwestern corner of the lot to plant a Colorado Blue Spruce tree near the western boundary of the proposed fence. The Applicant would also like to move a stone patio that exists on the riverside of the residence from its existing location to a new location that is southwest of the existing house (please see the proposed site plan that is attached as Exhibit "B"). The Roaring Fork River abuts the property to the west; therefore, the proposed addition of the fence, landscaping, and patio area is within 100 feet of the mean high water line of the river, which requires stream margin review approval pursuant to City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.435.040(C). The Community Development Director may approve or approve with conditions a land use request for stream margin review if it meets the review standards that are set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.435.040(C). STAFF COMMENTS: PROPOSED FENCE: The proposed fence is located outside of the lOO-year floodplain as is shown on the site plan that is attached as part of the application. In addition, the proposed fence is to be setback at least fifteen (15) feet from the river's top of slope. The river's top of slope on this property was determined in the 1990 stream margin review that allowed . for the residence's construction and is also shown. on the site plan that is attached as Exhibit "B". Staff feels that the proposed fence is in an area on the property that does not contain sensitive, riparian vegetation iIi which the stream margin review is intended to protect. Therefore, staff believes that it is appropriate in this situation to allow for the development of the fence outside of the building envelope because the building envelope in this case is not protecting riparian vegetation on the northern side of the residence to as far back as the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top-of-slope. Thus, staff would recommend that the Community Development Director exempt the fence from the building envelope regulations pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.575.1lO. 1 1"""\. ~ However, the Parks Department is concerned about the close proximity in which the fence would be constructed to the existing, mature Aspen trees that are located along the northern property line of the subject site. Therefore, the Parks Department has requested that the fence post holes be dug by hand tQ avoid damaging the root systems ofthe nearby trees. This request by the Parks Department has been included as a condition of approval. Additionally, the Parks Department is requiring that the fence posts be positioned so that they are not placed within three (3) feet of any of the mature Aspen trees. To insure that this condition is met, the Applicant shall be required to submit a plan to the Parks Department and the Community Development Engineer for approval that shows the fence post locations prior to excavation. In summary, staff believes that the proposed fence meets the applicable stream margin review standards and recommends that the. Community Development Director approve the proposed fence with the conditions established herein. PROPOSED PATIO ALTERATIONS: In reviewing the Applicant's request to remove the existing flagstone patio on the rear of the structure and replace it further to the south of the residence as is shown on. the proposed site plan attached as Exhibit "B", staff believes that the proposed change will not effect the native riparian area along the stream bank in which the stream margin review process was enacted to protect. Furthermore, staff believes that the relocated patio will not encroach into the required fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope of the river as was determined in the 1990 stream margin review for the construction of the residence. Moreover, the Parks Department is requiring that the Applicant re-vegetate the areas of the existing patio with a native seed mix that they would be required to approve prior to planting. Therefore, staff would recommend that the Community Development Director approve the proposed patio relocation portion of the application with conditions as stated herein, finding that the stream margin review standards have been met by this portion of the proposed request. PROPOSED COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE TREE: In reviewing the request to plant the proposed Colorado Blue Spruce tree, staff believes that the proposed location of the tree is within the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope of the river that was previously established, in which only native riparian vegetation is allowed. Staff feels that the proposed Colorado Blue Spruce tree is an appropriate, native tree species; however, the City Forester has determined that the tree would need to be cradled within a rock wall to protect the roots of a nearby mature Cottonwood tree. Therefore, the Applicant has proposed to enlarge an existing rock retaining structure that exists in the location of the proposed tree to cradle it. Due to the fact that the proposed tree will require it's roots to be fortified and that the abovementi<med rock Stru9ture would need to be constructed withinthe required fifteen (15) foot setback from the river's top of slope, staff does not believe that the proposed tree and it's associated rock root fortification meets Stream Margin Review Standard No.8 as is set forth in Land Use Code Section 26.435.040(C), Stream Margin Review. Therefore, staff would recommend that the Community Development Director deny the request to plant the proposed Blue Spruce tree in the stream margin area. 2 ~ "'"" ApPLICANT: DCR Family Limited Partnership, Owner. LOCATION: Lots 7-11, Block 1, Oklahoma Flats Subdivision. ZONING: R-30 PD REVIEW PROCEDURE: A stream margin review may be approved with conditions by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.435.040(C), Stream Margin Review. If the Community Development Director denies an application for a Stream Margin Review, the Applicant may request an appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Land Use. Code Section 26.435.040(D), Appeal o/Director's Determination. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Community Development Director approve the proposed stream margin review to construct a fence and to relocate the flagstone patio as is shown on the site plan attached as Exhibit "B", with the conditions of approval established herein. However, staff recommends that the Community Development Director deny the proposed request to plant the Colorado Blue Spruce tree and it's associated rock fortification finding that the root fortification would not comply with Stream Margin Review Standard No.8. ApPROVAL: I herby deny the stream margin request to plant the Colorado Blue Spruce tree and construct it's associated rock fortificatio.n tinging the Stream Margin Review Standard No.8 is not met by this request. Conversely, I hereby approve the Stream Margin Review request to construct a fence and relocate the existing flagstone patio as proposed on Lot 7- 11, Block 1 of the Oklahoma Flats Subdivisign with the followil1g conditions: 1. The Applicant shall excavate the postholes by hand to avoid damaging the root systems of the nearby Aspen trees. 2. The fence postholes shall be spaced so that they are not placed within three (3) feet of the mature Aspen trees that exist along the northern property Hne. Additionally, the Applicant shall provide aplan showing the exact location of the fence postholes for review and approval by the City of Aspen Parks Department and the Community Development Engineer prior to commencing excavation. Additionally, thirty-six (36) inches of the fence posts shall be imbedded in a concrete base. 3. The Applicant shall obtain a fence permit prior to constructing the fence. 4. The six (6) foot tall portion of the fence shall not extend any further east than the front fayade of the ADD and shall be located entirely on the Applicant's property. Additionally, the fence shall start no closer than fifteen (15) feet east of the witness corner to avoid the 100-year floociplain. The City Engineering Department has recommended that the fence be setback from the property line by approximately six 3 ~ ~ (6) inches so that it is clear that the fence is being constructed entirely on the Applicant's property. 5. The relocated patio shall not be any larger than 150 square feet and shall be constructed at grade as is consistent with the 2000 Stream Margin Amendment that allowed for the construction of the original flagstone patio. 6. The Applicant shall re-vegetate the area of the existing patio with a native seed mix approved by the Parks De~~~t.tl\i~ /\:2: ,<4tys of removing the existing patio stones. . f1 U V _. L) A COMMUNI1Y DEv t~,.w ~~tN i OlMcG! Vti CCEPTANCE: . CITY: Of ASPEN... . I, as the landowner, do hereby agree to the condItIons ot this Stream Margin Review Approval. date Denise Reich DCR Family Limited Partnership ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings Exhibit B -- Application Exhibit C -- 2000 Stream Margin Amendment Approval 4 . l~ AUG-21-2003 THU 02: 32 PM t . . h t (6) moM,! '" that il is clear ,hot the fence is being CODslnlcted entirely on the Applicant' ptopeny.. S. 'l'be rei . led patio shall not be any larger than 1 SO square feet and shaH be oonstruc at ~ IllS is consistent with th~ 2000 Stream Margin Amendment that allowed ~ the e<mstruCllOr'l ofthe original flagstone Fatio. 6. The Appl ant shall re-"c~etate the area of the existing patio with a native soed mix approved y the Parks DePlV\!51~1',:"ii.1hl\l JW Pays of removing the exigting patio stones. 1-\1 '1. t..J V c.....l.) . t:l . /0C..-.../'0 . / d;lfe ~llt,S/t.' ~ Ju' Ann I 0 ity Development Dir~clor - ACCEPTANCE; J COMMUN!~CDEVt.~AS~"'(,I1fll'it."""\)1 .' . I, as the landoWher~ d, hereby agree to the CO~mOIi$ o'\- this Stream Margm ReView Approval. f . FAX NO. ~ r---.. ~~. Den fOe Reich . . 'I ~ DCR Family Limited Partnership date <i JJ"Z'/OJ A'n'ACIIMENTS~ Exhibit A .... ReviOtV and Staff Findings ~bit B - A.ppllca on ~u\..l'bjt C - 2000 ~",.....""",,, '!:f.l"',....,.:... Am-dment Approva1 ,.c.A.lI 1 .:",.. {~~"~"1 ~..,.;..... ~~'~'; '< "-4.._~1.l . 4 P. 05 ;.. t*"\ ~ EXHIBIT A PROPOSED FENCE REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS: An application for an insubstantial amendment to a Stream Margin Review may be approved if it complies with the following criteria to the extent practical. 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; and, Staff Findim!: The proposed fence is not to be located within the IOO-year floodplain. Therefore, staff does not believe that the proposal will increase the base flood elevation on the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in.the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and, Staff Findine:: There is already a five (5) foot wide fisherman's easement along the river that was dedicated on the property in a previous stream margin review approval. Moreover, staff does not believe that the public's access to the existing fisherman's easement will be cut off by constructing the proposed fence because the fence is to be located at least thirty- five (35) feet from the high water line of the river and the public will still be able to access .the easement by means of using the neighboring' Francis Street Right-of-Way. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Section 26.435. 040(F) (1); and, ~ Staff Findinl!: Staff believes that. building envelope that was established was primarily intended to protect the riparian area on the west. side of the property near the river. Additionally, the areas in both sidt:: yard setbacks and the front yard setback are both planted with non- native vegetation. Therefore, staff believes that the areas outside of the building envelope on both side yards and the front yard could be treated like regular City Setbacks in regards to what is allowed to be developed outside of the building envelope. Thus, staff feels that a fence could be allowed in thesideyard setback if it meets the fence regulations that' exist in Land Use Code SectiQIl2q.5'7$.Q50, fences. Staff believes that the proposed fence does meet the abQvt::mentiQned fence. regulations and finds this criterion to be met. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and, Staff Findinl!: The proposed fence will not .alter the course of the river. Adciitionally, staff does not believe that the proposed fence will increase the on-site drainage on the parcel. Therefore, staff does not find this criterion to be applicable to this proposal. 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Boqrd prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and, Staff Findinl!: The Applicant is not proposing to alter a watercourse. Therefore, staff does not believe that this criterion is applicable to this proposal. 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and, Staff Findinl!: The Applicant is not proposing to alter a watercourse and is not proposing any work in the I DO-year floodplain relating to the proposed fence. Therefore, staff does not find this criterion to be applicable to this proposal. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the lOa-year flood plain; and, ~. Staff Findinf!: The Applicant is not proposing any work related to the fence within the I DO-year floodplain. Therefore, staff does not believe that this criterion is applicable to this proposal. 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope .or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Dev€}lopment Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and, Staff Findinf!: The top of slope of the Roaring Fork River was previously determined in the 1990 stream margin review for this property. As can be seen on the site plan that is attached in the application, the proposed fence is well outside of both the River's top of slope and' the 1 DO-year floodplain. Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height setforth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and, .. ....... .t f'lroo~~'1.h. /~' hll:}~ ~/ / Top O;)f ".11 t-I.'" . './' ................. '.'l Flgur'll! .'A" Staff Findinf!: As was discussed in the response to review standard No.9, the proposed fence is located well outside of the required fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope. Given that the fence is setback from the top of slope, staff believes that the proposal meets the required ,...., r'\ forty-five (45) degree angle from the top of slope. Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be met. 11. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Staff Findin2: Previous stream margin reviews have been completed for the property and previous surveys have not identified any wetlands on the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. ~ EXHIBIT A PROPOSED PATIO RELOCATION REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS: An application for an insubstantial amendment to a Stream Margin Review may be approved if it complies with the following criteria to the extent practical. 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; and, Staff Findin2:: The proposed relocation of the existing flagstone patio is not anticipated to increase the base flood elevation on the site because staff is requiring that the relocated patio be no larger than the existing patio. Therefore, there will be no less impervious space within the lOO-year floodplain as a result of the proposed patio relocation. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Epsement;" and, Staff Findin2:: There is already a five (5) foot wide fisherman's easement along the river that was dedicated on the property in a previous stream margin review approval. Moreover, staff does not believe that the public's access to the existing fisherman's easement will be cut off by relocating the existing patio because it is to. be located such that it does not encroach into the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope. Additionally, the public will still be able to access the easement by means of using the neighboring Francis Street Right-of-Way. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Section 26.435. 040(F) (1); and, ~ ~ Staff Findin2:: The existing patio was previously approved outside of the designated building pursuant to a stream margin review amendment that was approved in 2000. Staffbelieves that building envelope that was established was primarily intended to protect the riparian area on the west side of the property near the river.. It was pointed out in the 2000 stream margin amendment that the original deck was proposed at least.thirty-five (35) feet from the high water line of the river. Staff believes that the relocated paii()i.s not going to be located within the required fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope in which only native, riparian vegetation is allowed. Therefore, staff does not feel that the r~located patio will encroach on the native, riparian vegetation. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated building envelope; and, Staff Findin2:: The relocated patio will not alter the course of the river. Aciditi<mally, staff does not believe that the relocated patio will increase the on..site drainage on the parcel because staffis requiring that it be no larger than the 150 square feet that was approved for the existing porch. Moreover, the Applicant is going to be required to re-vegetate the area of the existing patio area with a native grass. seed mix to be approved by the Parks Department. Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be met. 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of saidnotice is submitted to the Fefleral Emer~ency Management Agency; and, Staff Findin2:: The Applicant is not proposing to alter a watercourse. Therefore, staff does not believe that this criterion is applicable to this proposal. 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and, Staff Findin2::' The Applicant is not proposing to alter a watercourse and the proposed location of the patio is outside of the required fifteen (15) foot setback from the river's top of slope. Thus, staff does not believe that there would be a change in the parcel's flood carrying capacity as a result of the requested patio relocation. Therefore, staff does not find this' criterion to be applicable to this proposal. r\ ~ 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the 1 OO-year flood plain; and, Staff Findinf!: Relocating an at-grade patio does not require federal or state permits. Therefore, staff does not believe that this criterion is applicable to this proposal. 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and, Staff Findinf!: The top of slope of the Roaring Fork River was previously determined in the 1990 stream margin review for this property. As can be seen on the site plan that is attached in the application; the relocated patio is well outside of both the River's top of slope. Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determined by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and, nIp o)f :!-I..... .. ..".. tI Pn:JOI'1!l4-l-IU/' hr-Igtrt / I;.it I" /' ,/ / / -",- /' ......; Fi!ilun. "A" Staff Findinf!: As was discussed in the response to review standard No.9, the relocated patio is well outside of the required fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope. Given that the patio is setback from the top of slope and at-grade, staff believes that the proposal meets the required forty-five (45) degree angle from the top of slope. Therefore, staff finds this criterion to be met. 9. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the slope and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; and, Staff Findin2:: The Applicant is not proposing any new outdoor lighting. In addition, any existing lighting is required to meet the exterior lighting standards in the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this proposal. 10. There has been accurate identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Staff Findin2:: Previous stream margin reviews have been completed for the property and previous surveys have not identified any wetlands on the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. I"l t'"'\ EXIDBIT A PROPOSED BLUE SPRUCE TREE REVIEW CRITERIA AND STAFF FINDINGS: An application for an insubstantial amel1dtnent to a Stream Margin Review may be approved if it complies with the following criteria to the extent practical. 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/or 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; and, Staff Findin2: Staff is concerned that the proposed Blue Spruce 'tree that the Applicant would like to plant about eight (8) feet from the high waterline of the river may increase the base flood elevation on the parcel because it would require a rock fortification to protect the roots of a nearby Cottonwood tree. Therefore, staff does not find this criterion to be met. 2. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan: Parks/Recreation/Open Space/Trails Plan and the Roaring Fork River Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the greatest extent practicable. Areas of historic public use or access shall be dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. A fisherman's easement granting public fishing access within the high water boundaries of the river course shall be granted via a recorded "Fisherman's Easement;" and, Staff Findin2: Staff does not believe that the five (5) foot wide fisherman's easement that was dedicated as part of a previous stream margin review will be impacted by the proposed tree. Staff finds this criterion to be met. 3. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut or fill) made outside of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be designated by this review and said envelope shall be recorded on a plat pursuant to Section 26.435.040(F)(1); and, ~ pc:: .... :'~ Staff Fiodioe: The Applicant is proposing to cradle and fortify the roots of the proposed Blue Spruce tree by constructing a boulder cradle around the tree, And therefore, because the tree. is proposed within the required fifteen (15) foot setback from the river's top of slope, staff does not believ~ that the proposed rock cradle is cQnsistent withwh!:lJisallQweg Witb.in fifteen (15) feet of the river's tQP Qf slope. Therefore, staff does not believe that this criterion has been met. 4. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into the river or onto its banks. Pools or hot tubs cannot be d.rqille4 outsidl? of the designated building envelope; and, Staff Fiodioe: Staff does not believe that the proposal to a~d the Blue Spnice tree with it's associated rock cradle structure will necessarily pollute or interfere with the natural changes to the river. However, staff is concerned that the natural on-site gn:unage may be negatively affected by the rock cradle that is proposed. Therefore, staff does not find that this criterion is met. 5. Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conservation Boar.d prior to any alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and, Staff Fiodioe: The Applicant is not proposing to alter a watercours~. Therefore, staff does not believe that this criterion is applicable to this proposal. 6. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the parcel is not diminished; and, Staff Fiodiof!: The Applicant is not proposing to alter a watercourse by adding the tree. Therefore, staff does not find this criterion to be applicable to this proposal. 7. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits relating to work within the lOO-year flood plain; and, r\ ~ Staff Findine: The Applicant would have to obtain a state permit to construct the cradle necessary to plant the proposed Blue Spruce tree within fifteen (15) feet of the high water line as was proposed. Therefore, staff does not believe that the request currently meets this criterion. 8. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place. below the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of . slope or the high waterline, whichever is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. New plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses) outside of the designated building envelope on the river side shall be native riparian vegetation as approved by the City. A landscape plan will be submitted with all development applications. The top of slope and 100-year flood plain elevation of the Roaring Fork River shall be determined by the Stream Margin Map located in the Community Development Department and filed at the City Engineering Department; and, Staff Findine: . Staff does believe that the proposed Colorado:Bll1e Spruce tree is an appropriate, native tree species; however, staff does not feel that the rock gradle that is !1ec~~sc:try to be constructed to prevent the proposed tree, from damaging the roots of a nearby Cottonwood tree is within the $cope of what is allowed to be done within the required fifteen (15) foot setback from the river's top of slope. Therefore, staff does not believe that this criterion is met. 9. All development outside the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shall be measured and determine.d by the Community Development Director using the definition for height set forth at Section 26.04.100 and method of calculating height set forth at Section 26.575.020 as shown in Figure "A"; and, <! d.~f" " Pl"t)"o:;_;thltl / 1;'.11:,/ I / Ti)~ o).f ,./ tl_..., /1' ~.,. / ", l .. FlgIJr'\II "A" Staff Findine: As was discussed in the response to review standard No.9, the proposed tree and rock cradle would be located within the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope. Therefore, the development of the rock cradle would not meet this standard. Staff does not believe that this criterion is met.. 9. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the river or located down the sl()pe and shall be in compliance with Section 26.575.150. A lighting plan will be submitted with all development applications; and, Staff Findine: The Applicant is not proposing any new outdoor lighting. In addition, any existing lighting is required to meet the exterior lighting standards in the Land Use Code. Staff finds this criterion not to be applicable to this proposal. 10. There has been accu,ra.te identification of wetlands and riparian zones. Staff Findine: Previous stream margin reviews have been completed for the property and previous surveys have not identified any wetlands on the property. Staff finds this criterion to be met. i' F-- f 811,lj;+ \\~/! FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET AMES LINDT coMPANY CITY OF ASPE I'HONB NUM9F,R; I'RoM: WARD MCMAKEN l~xrE: AUGUST 12, 2003 '1'0'1':\). NO. Ol' l'iH;"~ IN<:l.l'DIN(; CPVI;l{; TO: We :u:e reques . line with its ceo: possible. The 1 sc:ale the dlS . ~ENI)r:,R'j; I'I\X NIMIII'.R, 303 388-5124 SI;I'Jl)ER~ PHONE Nl'MaER: 303601-3974 PAX NuM8'E.R: 970 920.54:39 'tI!l.FBllENC~; STREAM ,,,--~~<i!liKmIl [JllRGENT o P1.EtI~\'. f:()MMl'.N'1' . 0 1'IYt\SF R);!'I.Y o 1'L1~M~E RECYC:LE': NOTBS/C9MMENT$; Jsunes. Here is a. of the plot with our requ.ested changes. the addition of a Blue Sp:r:uce, (Native vegetation) on the North property . line 18.5 feet west from the Witness Comer. We would prefer 20' if loca.tion is approximately 9 feet from the high water line as best asJ can YO\1 gave me. 1bistteewould built up rock four feet a.CtOSS each side. The do not want to little further &0, spacing leaves Ii . c:md1ed in accordance -with Aa~~ln's request. I have a dtawmg showing a whi~ would begin on the property line iJ.nd wrap around approximately . would allow for a 30" root ball and approximately six inches of soil on . .. t of the cradle would be: determined by the depth of the root ball as we turb the roots of the cottonwood, l'he 20 foot point would allow us to be a the base of the existing cotton wood and allow a little larger cradle. Either . . um of mote than 5' for the 6shennan'5 access. The Fence:. Th are tbtee matuXe Aspen Ttees which are in t.\;.e; line of the fence. They ate . not shown on dzawing, but I !>poke with the Pence Company and they indicated they would like to be 0 futther than 2' 9" fox their fence posts, but if necessary could worle at 3 feet. This Oi . at-tes other than normal spacing on their posts so they would prefer the shotter nurilber. They can then make the neces5a!yadjusttnents between trees for their other posts. PO BOX 581 FRANKTOWN, CO 80116 ! HONE: 303-601-3974 · FAX: 303-388-5124 l_ f"1 lbe. Patio: The . ting placement of the. patio h:l.s proven unusable. In the winter the outside grill p.\a.cC:~\::''Jt here results in extreme hazard to f~1ing Ice. 1b.e !\umme.r is unusable because of the . afternoon sun. We would like to remoV'e ~nd re-vegetated an atea of appro~tely 8 '14 leaving a walkway at the base of the staixs and add a p~tio 31'e3 of 10 :K 14 in the set back. utside the southwest comer of the house. 1bi.'i will giV'e better access to the Kitchen and p . sigci6.cant aftem,oon protection from the sun. The porch steps here are not subject to ice because of the roof design. The temoved pari area will be re~vegctated consistent with the sunoundingarea. Ca1lme-with I '1 1""'\ ) ~. w~~~ , l w~ ----f1.....'..~ ~ . k l~ ,. t I CL ~ f fJJ fLPNT f~ G, ~arr~ I~,~ iT. { (::~'. -. 'I~ I H! tL .-- rg;-~ L-i'" w!- 1 fZ: ~ 1~,N ~ R.9~ I 1"'"\ -'~DF"~ D~_@e$ ~ ... ! ii!i ;;;:: i': !:;5 ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ It>:o. !Y ...., a ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ;..", "I '- .'" o--lDO '.'~L .. .V.!N LINt ~..-.. . .,," ~~ oj." <~ . ~ " ~ ~S2 <!l;\ j!}:;! ~~ III "~ ~"i ~~ e;~ ~~ m~ '" ~ "i Cf.lIiJ(:/ .>IYO.:l DNIJ;l'IOCl r"" $ T< $(' l: IU)N ...... ", .....'...... ...-..... --"'--.. "'-- ------.----.. II ~\ f'~ ~ ilil I t:> ~ i it ~... t! n.... fr-- . r! f ',., I I I i . . ". .....:...::.:..:., , ,.,,' , __-'-'._~-:-:-:_'_~L. - .... ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~ ~ cc. ~ o \)- C) ~ ~ ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ " ,',' "- -- ii '" ~h/0l ,t;, NOTICE OF APPROVAL Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director Joyce Ohlson, Deputy Director Fred Jarman, Planner f:f To: FROM: 111111I111111111I111111111111111 111111111I'1111111111111 44!5796 e8/~4/200e 10:21SA NOTICE DAVIS SILVI 1 Q' 7 R 3!.00 0 0.e0N ~.00 PITJ<INCQUNTYCO RE: Reich Stream Margin Amendment #2 and Accessory Dwelling Unit DATE: June 20, 2000' ApPLICANT: ORC FEUUHy Limited Partnership Denice Reich, Owner R~PRESENTA TtVE: Alan Richman, Alan Richman Planning Services PARCELID: 2737-073-10-001 A:.iiiiRESS: 375 North Spring Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611 ZONING: R-30, Low Density Residential CURRENT LAND USE: Undeveloped lot with three unoccupied structures. PROPOSED LAND USE: Stream Margin Amendment and Accesso'ry Dwelling Unit (ADD). REVIEW PROCEDURE: Stream Margin Amendment. The . Community Development Director may approve this amendment to the original Steam Margin Review adopted in 1990 via Resolution 90-5 and amended in 1998. However, this amendment shall meet all additional criteria adopted subsequent to the adoption of the original Stream Margin Review in 1990. The Community Development Director shall approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove a land use application for an Accessory Dw'elling Unit. n I /lIIIIJIIIIIIII/I 1r11111 1111 1111111 III 11111 1111 1111 44S796 08/04/20~ ~0:26ANOTICE DAVIS SILVI 2 of 7 R 35.00 D 0.00 N 0.00 PITKIN COUNTY CO " STAFF COMMENTS: . The applicant, Denice ReiCh, represented by Alan Ric!unan of Richman Planning Services, wishes to amend a previously approved Stream Margin Review approval and construct an Accessory DwellingtTnit (ADU) on her property located in the Oklahoma Flats Addition immediately adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. This property is partially located in the 100- year floodplain thereby requiring a land use review for development within an environmental sensitive area. The majority of development will take place within a building envelope that received ~tream margin approval from the Aspen Plannlng and Zoning Commission on February 20, 1990 pursuant to Res<,?Iution 90-5. City Council granted vested rights status on June 11, 1990 pursuant to Ordinance 90-35. The vested rights expired in June 1993. '- In 1998, the applicant submitted an application for a Stream Margin Amendment, requesting that the City permit the applicant to relocate an existing residence that had been scheduled for I-i..;[ilolition. The City granted this approval via administrative action on August 24, 1998. The residence has since been placed on this property, although it has never been made .....itable for occupancy. On a recent site visit, two other smaner "storage structures" also cun~iltly exist on the property. All of these structures will be removed prior to construction on~ proposed residence. . flte . The City determined the administrative Steam Margin Amendment approved in 1998 remains in full force and effect subject to any changes in the Aspen Land Use Code subsequent to the expiration of the property's vested rights. Therefore, prior to any development, the applicant shall comply with the original review standards and conditions of approval required in 1990 as well as any newly adopted changes made to the Stream Margin Review criteria. During staff review, severalissu~s arose regarding 1) the proposed development of a flagstone patio outside of the building envelope 2) the type of sod and landscaping proposed for the river side of the development 3) and the proposed extension of an existing benn located partially on the applicant's property and partially on her neighbor's property along the westerly property line. The applicant originally proposed a flagstone patio to extend roughly 350 sq. ft. outside of the established building envelope. Section 26.575.110 indicates other than "approved plantings," all areas outside of a building envelope shall remain in pristine and untmfched condition unless approved by the Community Development Director. Staff is willing to allow a flagstone patio, which extends beyond the existing building envelope that is 1) constructed at grade and 2) limited to 150 sq. ft. in total patio area. Additionally, this patio is allowed contingent to any landscaPing that is placed outside of the building envelope be restricted to "native grasses." The portion of "sod" indicated on the currently proposed site plan must be of native grass species on all areas outside of the building envelope on the stream side. The landscaping and sod as proposed may be allowed according to Section 26.575.110 that' indicates, "approved plantings" of landscaped materials on natural grade may occur outside the building envelope. Staff indicates any landscaping proposed on the stream side of the lot, outside ofthe building envelope, shall be restricted to native grasses. This is allowed 2 lii5iiio - u ... =>>- --:- ... ... _....z _en:;:) '-en8 -.... """"'-- > z _ a: ... _OlllC -1&It; !!!!!UIL -... -... C5) . is! _ ISl Iz iiiiGiI !!J!!.-4si =10 Iii.'. iiiii I . -,'I =Ia:: =I~ -~40- =.. 0 ==:J:C') f"""\ ~' . because it will be or result in a marked improvement to current site conditions. Further, pursuant to Section 26A35~040 (C)(lO) new plantings including trees, shrubs, flowers, and grasses outside of the designated building envelope on the riverside shalI"be limited to native riparian vegetation. Staff indicates this shall be followed strictly as indicated above for the purpose of protecting existing riparian vegetation and bank stability. The applicant entered into an agreement on August 3, 1990 with the City Engineering Department, which established a reduction in the N. Spring Street reservation on the easterly property line from 20' to 8' in exchange for the denial of use of the "Francis Street" easement, which had been intended as the primary residential access to the lot. As a result of this agreement the Francis Street easement will be used for a drainage swale maintained by the City Engineering Department. Staff tinds that this decrease in the reservation area dedication shall be accurately reflected and recorded with a final plat that shall be recognized aua signed by the City Engineering Department. ~ urther, the applicant has been working closely with the Parks Department to determine whll,;il trees on the property would be required to remain on the property and which could be removed to permit construction to occur. The Parks Department issued the tree removal permit on 12/15/99. Included in the application is a site plan Ilandscape plan that is based on the discussions held with the Parks Department. It clearly shows the trees that will be preserved, as required by the Parks Department. It also shows that no disturbance will occur in an area that is fifteen feet (15') back from the top of the ban1e In fact, the building envelope, as established in 1990, is fully 35'.from the edge of the property, whichis well beyond the limits of the riparian area and the floodplain. Finally, it shows the other trees that will remain on the property, and the trees that will be planted. The new trees have been planted in a manner that will screen the residence. from neighboring properties, while also helping to reforest the property . The Applicant will provide the Parks Department with receipts for the new trees that are planted, to verify ;the amount spent on landscaping. It is our understanding that these expenditures wil(be credited toward the tree mitigation fee of$37,719.80 that has been imposed by the Parks Department as a condition of the tree removal permit. With respect to the setback (building envelope) from the top of the slope, the applicant indicates that the original setback was set at35', which is well beyond the limits of the riparian area and floodplain. Currently, the code (Section 26.435.040 (C)(8) indicates that: \ There is no development other than approved native ,,!egetation 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 andhllnk stability; The applicanti~dicates that the site plan depicts the high waterline and the top of the stream bank., both of which are located quite close to the property boundary. The site plan also shows the 15' setback from the top of the slope, which has been labeled as the "untouchable '" oJ .iiiiiiiii 0 ...... u - .... ->> -...I.... _HZ _ en ::) :=.0 _utU -... . --:- > Z g~ -.... -LL1H !!!!!!!!Uo.. _... -....S -OlSl z. _ I5l . ~Z iiiiii s I -""" _ I5l . la 1i,1I iiiii: . _,III ;;;;;;Ia= -.,... -""40- -In 0 !!!!! ~ -~... ~ area (to be protected by a ~ence)." No development shall take place in this area. Existing trees in the area are shown--as remaining and no new trees will be planted in this area, in conformance with the direction provided by the Parks DepartmeIlt. Additionally, the landscaping onthe site plan submitted by the applicant must comply with Section 26.435.040 (C)(lO), which indicates: A . landscape plan is submitted witll all development applications. Such plan shall limit new plantings (including trees, shrubs, flowers, ami grasses) olltside of the designated building envelope on tile river side to native riparian vegetation; 111e applicant has submitted a site Ilandscape plan which is described above. The Applicant agrees that new plantings outside of the building envelope on the river side of the property will be limited to native riparian vegetation. Disturbed areas will be stabilized with sod and lli:ttive grasses. CONDITIONS OF ApPROVAL The Community Development Director approves this land use application for a Stream Margin Review Amendment and Accessory Dwelling Unit for the Reich property located at 375 North Spring Street with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant receives approval from the City Engineering Department for design of improvements, including grading, drainage,transportationlstreets, landscaping, and encroachments within public right of way; . . 2. That the applicant receives approval from the Parks Department for vegetation species and for public trail disturbance; e..., G F- 3. That the applicant receives approval from the Streets Department for mailboxes, fInished ~(b~ pavement, surface materials on streets, and alleyways; " 4. That the applicant obtains right-of-way permits for any :work or development involving street cuts, landscaping, or other disturbance, including-during construction from the City f;J G U2- Engineering Department; . " 5. Thatifthere are any encroachments into the public rights-of-way, the encroachment must either be removed or be subject to current encroachment license requirements; 6. That the applicant submits a utility plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; 'G.JG.P- 7. That a drainage report be submitted with the application prior to application of building permits. The site development approvals must include 'the requirement meeting runoff ~NG(2-- design standards of the Land Use Code atSec. 26.580.020.A.6.a and a requirement that, prior to the application of a building permit, a drainage mitigation plan (24"x36" size plan sheet or on the lot grading plan) must meet the requirements of the Engineering Department Interim Design Standards and must be submitted for review and approval by 4 .::-- 0 ~. u _H .=>>- _..J~ . HZ 'iiiiiii en ;:) - 0 -enu _H _>Z = a: ... _ 0 llC - ... _ILIH -UA. -... -~61 -OQ =z . _61 ~Z .. Q 61Q !!!!!! ... . -.Q 10 ~Q =='51 ==:. _......:tJ _10: -!fro- -F="" -ICI 0 !!!!.. _"10 r-. the Engineering Department. The mitigation plan must also address the temporary sediment control and c9ntainment plan for the construction phase. The foundation drainage system should be separate from storm drainage, must be detained and routed on site, and must be shown on drainage plans prior to application for building permit. The drainage may be conveyed to existing landscaped areas if the drainage report demonstrates that the percolation rate and the detention volume meet the design storm; t:: j..l & ,e.. 8. The proposed flagstone patio on the river side of the house is outside of the building cnvel.ope. Constructiol1 outsic\e the builc\ing .e. nvelope is. not allowed. However, at the't<.. _ discretion of the Community Development Director pursuant to Section 26.575.110, i:", ~ - will b~allowed to exist partially beyond the building envelope and shall not exceed 150 . )~J' sq. ft. in total area and shall be constructed at grade. This patio is allowed contingent to all landscaping placed outside of the building envelope' be restricted to "native grasses." The portion of "sod" indicated on the currently proposed site plan must be of a native grass species on all areas outside of the building envelope on the stream side; . 9. 7'ne proposed_ extension of the existing berm located on the southerly property line is ...J . outside of the building envelope. This extension is prohibited. Construction of ~~ landscaping outside the building envelope located along the proposed berm line is subject to approval. The berm extension is therefore not approved as a.part of this lot redevelopment; '~ ~ 10. The applicant shall not track mud onto city streets during construction as required by City Streets Department. A washed rock or other style mud rack must be installed during' construction; ~NG~ 11. A tree removal permit has been approved on December 15, 1999. Under this permit it has been stressed that the "Group B" trees are not to be removed. Moreover, total mitigation ~. amount of $37,7I9.80must be met in full within the property through a planned out and -~k thorough Landscape Design by a professional Landscape Architect or designer. There are S many areas within the property, which will be required to remain as native vegetation, " most importantly the riparian corridor along the river. The applicant must provide this . landscape design to the Natural Resources Manager for review well in advance of { completion of the project. full mitigation must be met on site or must be paid in cash-in- 4 lieu to the City Reforestation Fund. Receipts of all TREE installation must be kept and verified; 12. The applicant must provide Tree Protection Fencing in the form of Chain Link Panel Fencing around the drip line of all vegetation to be saved on site. The applicant MUST call the City Forester for an inspection of this fencing before ANY construction activities begin. No excavation, storage of materials, or any other use will occUr within this zone during construction activities; .$~ o..l S(r~ p~ 13. Construction and Silt Protection Fencing MUST be placed along the stream Margin area for protection of the Roaring Fork River Corridor BEFORE any construction activities.. areto begin. No activities (except perhaps restoration) shall occur within this protection zone. The applicant is required to submit a detailed riparian fencing plan detailing the 5 .~ J iiiiiio !!!!!! u ->>- -..J.... -HZ -en::;) -,.0 _enu _H _>Z -a;H _O:lal: -iii!:; -UIlL _H -....C5I --i~ _ C5I _Z iiiitSil !!!!!!!!~si iiiil 0 !!!!!!!!,I =:. -,~ -GO iiiiC51k -ca,.. =Ol -,.. .. -'100 !!!!! ... ____ .... UI I' ~. protected area along the riverbank prior to the application of building permits. City F oresier must be called: for an inspection before any construction activities begin; 14. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued before all requirements are met; This ~ &>cS ~~ s 15. There is an infringement of the drip line of the "Group A" tree near the driveway. needs to be corrected in the design; 16. The applicant shall submit a copy of the soils report to the Parks Department prior to application of building permits; . 17. A right-of-way landscaping permit is required for alllandscaPi.ng in the PU.bliC right of~ way and is subject to approval by the Parks Department prior to the application of "'-I"l1- building permits; ~ ~ S. Right-of-way permits and Encroachment Licenses will be required during construction if f;.1JG,f2- ....yplicable; 19. Upon recommendation from the City of Aspen Engineering.Department, the applicant may use the Francis Street right-of-way for drainage via sheet flow of natural storm water run off from the property. Additionally, as per recommendation by the City of Aspen Engineering Department, the applicant shall place adequate vegetation placed between the proposed residence and the Francis Street right-of-way so that suffident filtering may occur. In no way shall piped water flow be ~irected into the Francis Street right-of-way from the applicant's property; 20. A full soils report and drainage report are needed before the application ofbuiIding permits; 21. This amendment to the reservation area dedication, which established a reduction in the .Y,IJJjJD N. Spring Street reservation from 20' to 8' in exchange for the denial of use of the \t, iOP" "PrancisStreet" easement for a primary residential access, shall be legally recorded and ~~ f,\J signed on the final plat by the Cit~ Engineering Department as a condition for approval for this Stream Margin Review Amendment prior to the application of building permits. Additionally, all conditions and understandings entered into between the applicant and the City Engineering Department on July 30, 1999 shall remain in full effect; . ~ 22. On October 28, 1998, the applicant paid a fee 01'$12,685.20 in housing impact mitigation fees in order to move the residence on the property. It is the understanding of the \.. .. .... . ... . . . Community Development Department that this fee 01'$12,685.20 paid in cash-in-lieu for the housing impact mitigation fees shall be refunded to the applicant after a certificate of occupancy has been isstled for the new accessory dwelling unit; 23. 'That the applicable deed restriction for the ADD be accepted by the Aspen/Pitkin County _ /' Housing Authority and is recorded prior to an application for a building permit. V , " 6 ~1Z-- t;Jb/i!-- ~tJGIL- 11 (j)L .. ~& "'0 !!!!!! u .... ->>- -....I... !!!!!!....z _0~ .,,*8 -.... _>Z -~~ - ... -11IM !!!!!UG.. -.... -...: =i. - Q _Z iiii51: !!!!! ..... - Q !!!!!I: =......Q =:. _......:51 -aD iiiiiQIt: -ca.... =(1) iiiiime; !!!!!! .. -...... I. r'\ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DECISION , The Community Development Director finds the Stream Margin Review Amendment and the Accessory Dwelling Unit to be consistent withthe review qiteria, and hereby approves the exemption on this .JoA'1iay of June, 2000 contingent upon compliance with the conditions st~ted herein and required for this approval. * . i:1 '( v:? A P' - '~' ":;i~~. . ~ C! g",t; . ,/)1/2 7'-, .' ? Applicant's Signature ... '., ~. ~ *SUPPORTING DECISION DOCUMENTATION BEQUIRED AS PART OF THIS DECISION OF APPROVAL CONSISTING OF THE ArTACIIJ\tlENTS LISTED ll.E10'Yl\1AY .1lE:.FOUND IN THE CORRESPONDING LAND USE FILE AT THE CITY HALL. ATT ACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- Review Criteria & Staff Findings Exhibit B -- ADlJN()ti~~ ()f:P~~isi()!l!!l!gA:P!L!l~~!gn Standards. Checklist Exhibit C -- Proposed ADD Floor Plan . Exhibit D -- Proposed Site Plan showing designated ADD Parking Space Exhibit E -- Parcel 2737-Q73-10-001 Lo,cation and Vicinity Map Exhibit F -- Photo Documentation of Parcel Exhibit G -- Application Letter 7 / ~ brianf@cLaspen.co.us, 11:20 AM 07/31/2003, Summary of 375 N. Spring Site Visit To: brianf@cLaspen.co.us From: James Lindt <jamesl@cLaspen.co.us> Subject: Summary of 375 N. Spring SiteVisit Cc: Bcc: Attached: Hi Brian, Based on our site visit yesterday of 375 N. Spring Street, it was decided that the Parks Department would like following conditions placed on the Stream Margin Review Amendment to construct a fence: 1. The fence post holes shall be hand excavated. 2. The fence posts shall be spaced so thcilfthey are not placed within three (3) feet of the mature Aspen trees located along the northern property line. Additionally, the Applicant shall provide a plan showing the exact location of the fence post holes for review and approval by the City.of Aspen Parks Department prior to excavation. 3. The Parks Department does notrequire, but would encourage the Applicant to cut the fence boards to work with the existing boulders along the northern property line. Do these conditions look accurate? Do you have any additional comments about the application. Thanks, James Printed for James Lindt <jamesl@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 AUG-21-2003 THU 02:31 PM .~ FAX NO. P. 01 130 S. Galena $l Aspen CO 81811 . (970) 920-509<J (970) 920-5439, fax Aspen CommlJnlf.y Development Department .C1O ~ ....... --- roam James Lindt ~ (303)G07 ....._r ........ Date: 8121/03 ... Rei~ S ec~ o Ursent o PIN" Comment 0 Ple~e ReplY o Please Ilecycole . Commants: HI ward, Here Ii the approVIII OQ,Jrnant for Denise ReICh's stream margin review. We are not comfortable appJ'O'IIlng the ere(le dmlnlstrilt1v8ly, but we did.approve the fence and the pstlo relocation. Please h&lVe Denise Glgn pag 4 and return It to me for our file. Please let me know jf you have any Cluesllom;, 1'hanks, JBf'I16S ~ ~ " ~ 130 S. Galena St. Aspen CO 81611 (970) 920-5090 (970) 920-5439, fax Aspen Community Development Department Fax To: Ward McMaken From: James Lindt Fax: (303) 388-5124 Pages: Phone: Date: 8/15/03 Re: Reich Stream Margin Review cc: o Urgent o For Review o Please Comment 0 Please Reply o Please Recycle . Comments: Hi Ward, Here is the approval document for Denise Reich's stream. margin review. We were not comfortable approving the cradle administratively, but we did approve the fence and the patio relocation. Please have Denise sign page 4 and return it to me for our file. Please let me know if you have any questions. . Thanks, James 07/30/2003 09:50 9709*296 ROARING FORK FENCING PAGE 01 J FOR FENCING DATE: TO: FAX: # OF PAGES (Including over) L.~ Please call 927-0294 if you 0 not recei"c aU pages FROM: COMMENTS: eM-U. . 050 Sunset Dr. Suite #6, Basalt, CO 81621 970-927-0294 1-800-71h7102 970-927-0296 t 07/30/2003 09:50 9709~296 ; .,... .. ..... .......... ....... . ...... .. . ... ,.......;... ;.... ........... .. ...... '.... .... ........ ;........;....... ;........ .... ... .~.'i. 'l"i.,"'/' ,. r~ T j,,\: ..... . ..... ....... ... {':. ., ,......--... i,-:..,.:c......:. .......... .. ftAtIOIr.;t~!tl:iMLtl:twftlM;,'lC111lWUfl ~. ROARING FORK ""ENCING . 50 Sunset Dri\ ;, #6 BASALT, COLORi[ 0 81621 (970) 927-0 94 Fax (970) 927 0296 . ,....... ;........ .... ..... ...L........;....... .. ......... ....... . . .. ..... ....... ..'..... .................. ..... .... ...... ............ ... .......... ..,.... .... ;.. ;.... .. ,...... ....... ...;... .... -- ~i~" '-. ... ........ ...... ...... ."........ ... ..J. f . ..., ... ., ... f "'. ...... ~ .. ..... ...... .... .. ... "1'" .'f" I .. ..1 I ."1" .j I i I .1... . I.......! I I 11 ....rr..1 ."i'.. .:11.: '.lkJ! ;' '.. ,: ..\:.: ".J;" ;"./:rlf",t..t: :.; ............ ...... .:'.;'" <..;.. .....,...... .... .. :,.... ... .'. .' ....1 1".1 ! -1 I t. I ~i i...... ................ .... '" ...................,....... ,........ .,;.. c' -n : ROARING FORK RCING JOB SH!;ET NO. CALCULATED BY CHECKED BY SCALE ,....... ......... ...... ............ .............. ..... '" ... ..... ~. . I ... ,~~>.v. .,,,v,/:........ ( '\...... ,...~ ;.. ...,.........,........ ....... .... ...,..,. . ....... ..... ......... i ....J ! ...} 1 I' . ~ , .... .. t, ....j .... ...1- I , ..... .....1 ..... ..1. f I. ..t. ..... ; .......1 : i I' i ....... :.: ~ . ,_ '~"?\~0:(li~ : '. .' ..11.. I I I . j. ! I I 1 PAGE 02 OF DATE DATE ..... :. ......... .... .... ......... .... .. ....... .. ." ,............ ....... .... ,....... ........ .... ". ...;. (.. .. .. ~\ ;I i )/ '. i'iI.::' b../.,.;:.. /" .. "/'.. J-, ;.. . ..... ...... ... ....:.i.....:........... ;"": .... .'.. ..:.....:: ....... .... ................ ...... T' l ...j...... .... j I ; I " .j ! I "'1 ..t.... ......! i r.... ...1. ...... ..1 , ! j t 'r.' i 1- f ....j I i I r i 1. l 1 , ,i.. , ! ....1..... I , ,.. I I t. ;. f\ L'j/)J .. i.. '. .... ;...... ..' .. . ["-,..... .~~'1. (,~:x~ '/' .... !/" .. (;)~ST/>~('j ...... ...... .......... ......... ......... ....... .... .' '. .... . ...... ..... jJ'~" 'I"'; /1- v,. r AC .'" i<", i. ~/) ~ '~ "- ~...T "";J ,( j).l!<:- ) .-'.. 'r ~ I .. I + ....... ..... '\1 ~;':~-::.t ....... .". .\-\~... .....,..d;...::.:;::.. J . ..;:,I5~lf:::,t.:::~~ ..... l.. '.' .. .' ........ .. ..... : ~":j,'\, :".J /.< ."" ~ i',,- ...' >-"." .. ,/:..,{,' . .'. .. /,i 'i { ('jl , ...:.:':..:::::";. ....... ........... ; ;;:~t; ......... :'.. ........... ...... .. ..... ,.. ....... .. ..... ......... .... ... y,\ .<6/ ( ................ ... . , ." ...,... ......,........ ........ ,,~,~i.,': '..I..'....'" ...,;:;~<"'.. '." ~\ <:J)- ,~,. .~~" .,.... '.::' ....;...... ,..:,..'."..... ""'~...,,~ . ....- ....', i ; .......,;.......... :...... ... .. ..... .. ..... .... ......,...... ..... ...... .......... .... :.. .... , ............. _\ .... .. ......... ..... .... ..... ...~ . I(\..;".~ '.. ;.........:... . .. : {)4' ;','{;) :a:;........." ,::::; . ...... .......... ;..... ...... '~IJ, 0 ! ~ lit ~~, L?: ~_ q, ..~ ~ 2 ,,- =r ~Iu I II Ii- r, I I ~ ':.~ Z ---r ~ ===T o .\ u ~ lfl - == ~'-/\I~ ~ ~ vF--, '" . '9," <: I ~ \ lfl z = %~.~~/I~~ (j ~. U y.s- .. :;; "W . , ' 0' \~.;_ ~ J f. m" '( 2 ' ~ ~ J o Ii; '" //;}f/l: V ~ V1 ~~ ~ >-< f; IL'l " rlI/t/)~. ~ 0"" . ~\ ~ ~ t:1 " Wkli~ ,'~ ~\~"o~ ~ u ~ )11 I. '////I~ ,\\ '~, " ~.... \1 ;\ ~ > ;?, ! J \ II I cJ : ~ \ \ '{ I ~ ~ \5'1," 11d1~1% ~~~ ~ ~ ~9Q '} ~ t Nil '" 0Q 1._ /'"" ~ ~;%7 v..!; '" "/ " 0 .s>+..'Q ~ ~ V !~ 'II , ' <) -' .s> V, ~~ ' I,~ I ',\ -' = ,9, ~ " ~ L \ \ ~ , , III ;;;'/ I I ::[ V /Ai .f/ ~ ~ ~ I, <"' !\i< 0" ;:;:";','F" ,.;.;.- -~ 0 xO ~ ~~._.-\ yi~ Ie; , // d' 'l~: fl ? \ l - \S1 ~.x /? ,JII '!I; , o II -J r ~ ~ \\\ Z \ ~~;~"'~ ~~J~~ ~--~!?r/~~~ ~~~ f ~ ~ Sl' 1'\ t2 / / ~ i: I i)~ , ) ~ \ 1)1 ~~; /~ / ;n/1 ' ~ ., 1/'\ / & ~~ ~ " '\, ~V ' ~. '/.. '("" O '( c.>; ~ , r I ~ II ~ .! I r ~ t ~ ~ (\ !OO~r" o o 'fir \'7.. ~ ~ ' :::..,: H II I ~ '0/ ~ .fij '\1 )~y~ is>+ ~ i'. IIv-, \' ,,1") ~"'"\.~~ ~ - I '(' ~ ~ ~ -c '-." ~ '" I 1 U Ir--~ VIe: ""'~, ~ o .c.,~ ( IJ''--' #/1 // '~ ~\ ~: \J\ C r;.'?r~ ~'I/!/i( DQ.s> I ~. ,~~~ ~~ . 'li~.1P / ~\\~' C 1 I CJ I I ~u Z j~ ~m ,......, . -----.ii< Q I' ~\ ~\ I ~~. \\// 'I, ~ ~ ~ !. '/,-\ -tt ~/ .- \ ,t \ " '\ " t ~ / ~ ~~ '<C -.I" Q~ okJ -.IF ~;! .J ~ ;<:ltj \~ ~(I) (I)~ ~f::: ~~ . \~ '-'~ ~ Q::::!;'<l ~ '<C 0: C,j~l.i Lu ~c Q: (I) a \--.~~ ::::!;~ a...oc o !l::.- ,.,J l.: t ~8( Lu :<" a_~ ::::!;l OeJ l5 Q: '<C ( ) ~.. "'".' .... ~ ~~ ~. ' ~ ----- e ~ ~ ..~ i.(j.~ " n ~ " 07/30/2003 09:50 9709*96 ROARING FORK FENCING 'PAGE 03 .", I ATTACHMENT 2 -LAND USE APPLICATION APPLICANT: Parcel ill # Name: Location: REPRESENTATIVE: 7dJO Name: Address: Phone #: PROJECT: I' Name: Address: Phone #: TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply): ~ ~ ::Ix) D Conditional Use D Conceptual POO D Conceptp(ll Historic Devt. D Special Review D FinalPUD (& POO Amendment) 0 Final Historic Development D Design Review Appeal D Conceptual SPA 0 Minor Historic Devt. D GMQS Allotment D Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) D Historic Demolition ~MQS Exemption D Subdivision D Historic Desi~ation . ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream 0 Subdivision Exemption (includes D Small Lodge Conversion! Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiumization) Expansion Mountain View Plane D Lot Split D Temporary Use D Other: D Lot Line Ad"ustment D TexVMa Amendment Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ D Pre-Application Conference Sumniary D Attachment #1, Signed ,Fee Agreement RETAIN.FOR PERMANENTRE<:()R[), o Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form D Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards All plans that ~re larger than 8.5" x 11" must be folded and a floppy disk with an electronic copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. .~ ~ CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY bEVELoPMENTDEPARTMENT A2:reement for Pavment ofCitv of Aspen Development Application Fee~ CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 57 (Series of 2000) establishes a fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to adetennination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processin:g the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees . additional cos~sll1ay accrue following their hearings and/or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are inclliTed. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to enable the Planning Commission and/or City Council to. make legally required fmdings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consIderation. of the CITY's 'Naiver orits right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ which is for. . hours. Of Cormnunity Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $205.00 perplat1I1e~hol11" ()vertheinitial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay, such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processmg have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN By: Julie Ann Woods Community Development Director APPLl~.. . By: ~ Date:. Billing Address .and Telephone Number: Required g: \support\forms\agrpayas.doc 6/05/03 ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2003 LAND USE APPLICATION FEES CATEGORY Major 12 Minor 6 Staff Approvals Flat Fee Board of Adjustment Exempt HPC Certificate of No Negative Effect Minor HPC Significant HPC <1000 sq. ft. Significant HPC >1000 sq. ft. Demolition, Partial Demolition, Relocation Referral Fees - Environmental Health Major ' Minor Referral Fees - Housing Major Minor Referral Fees - City Engineer Major Minor Hourly Rate HOURS DEPOSIT FLAT FEE 2,520.00 1,260.00 525.00 290.00 170.00 00.00 300.00 525.00 1260.00 2520.00 2520.00 355.00 185.00 355.00 185.00 355.00 185.00 210.00 I""', ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF ASPEN DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FEE POLICY The City of Aspen, pursuant to Ordinance 57 (Series of 2000), has established a fee structure for the processing of land use applications. A flat fee or deposit is collected for land use applications based on the type of application submitted. Referral fees for other City departments reviewing the application will also be collected when necessary. One check including the deposit for Planning and referral agency fees must be submitted with each land use application, made payable to the AspenlPitkin Community bevelopment Department. Applications will not be accepted for processing without the required application fee. A flat fee is collected by Community Development for Administrative Approvals which normally take a minimal and predictable amount of staff time to process. The fee is not refundable. A deposit is collected by Community Development. when more extensivy staff review is . required, as hours are likely to vary substantially from one application to another. Actual staff time spent will be charged against thedeposit. Several different staff members may charge their time spent on. the case in addition to the case planner. Staff time is logged to the case and staff can provide a summary report of hours spent at the applicant's request. After the deposit has been expended, the applicant will be billed . monthly based on actual staff hours. Applicants may accrue arid be billed additional expenses for a planner's time spent on the case following any hearing or approvals, up until the applicant applies for a building permit. Current billings must be paid within 30 days or processing' of the application will be suspended. If an applicant has previously failed to pay application fees as required, no new or additional applications will. be accepted for processing until the outstanding fees are paid. In no case will Building Permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. "When the case planner determInes that the case is completed (whether approved or not approved), the case is considered closed and any remaining balance from the deposit will be refunded to the applicant. Applications which require a deposit must include an Agreement for Payment of Development Application Fees. The Agreement establishes the applicant as being responsible for payment of all costs associated with processing the application. The Agreement must be signed by the party responsible for payment and submitted with the application and fee in order for a land use case to be opened. The current complete fee schedule for land use applications is listed on the next page. Section 15.04.410Maintaining inoperable vehicles prohibite~ r"\ , J 1l'"J1 ,.,."dJ".,~ Page 1 of 2 Remove highlighting. Chapter 15.04 MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES AND PENAL TIES*1 *2 ~."""".,.,,,,,,,:,!,,,,,-,",,,,,,,,,~,,,,,.'..~~,,.,.,,,,,.,.-~~,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~........,-,..,.,.,,,,,,.,,,."'''''''''''''''''-="'''''","..,...""",,,~ Section 15.04.410 Maintaining inoperable vehicles prohibited. (a) The city council finds that junked, wrecked, dismantled,inoperable, discarded or abandoned vehiclf:ls in.and upon real propert:Vvvithin the city is a matter affecting the health, safetY and general welfare of the citizens of Aspen, Calarada". far the followingJe'asol1s: (1) Such vehicles serve as a breeding ground for flies, mosquitoes, rats and other insects and rodents; (2) . They: area danger ,to pe[s~particularly children, because of broken glass, sharp metal protrusions, insecure mounting on blocks, jacks, or supp.orts andllecausa thay are a ready source. of fire and explo.sion; (3) They encourage pilfering and theft,and constitutaabUghtin~irtflyence upon fua area in which. they ara located therelly causing, a loss in praperty . value to surrounding property; . (4.) They: constitute a f[fa hazard in that they bLock access for fire equipment to adjacent buildings and structures. . (bl For the purposes of this section the following definitions shall apply: (1) Inoperable means a condition of being junked, wrecked, wholly or partially dismantled. dis~a.rded". abandone<1or'unClbla to perform the functions or purpose for which it wai originally constructed. (2l VehicLe means any automobile". truck" tractor or motorcycle which as originally built contained an engine, regardless of whether it contains an engine at any other time. (cl . Exceptas provided in subsections (s:lland (el. it shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, corporation, or their agent, either as owner, lessee, tenant oroccupant of any lot or land, within the city to. park"storf:lar deposit or permit to be parked, stored or deposited thereon, an inoperable vehicle unless if is encfose'd' in a garage or other building. (d) The provisions of subsection (c) shall not apply to any person, partnership or corporatian or their agent with, one vehicle inoperabLe for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days. (~l The provisions of subsection lclshall notilpplyto any person.fi[~ or corporation or their agent'who is conducting a business enterprise in compliance with existingzoningregJdaticin& or who..places suchveh~s httpJ/www.bpcneLcom/cgi-bin/hilite.pUcodeslaspenl-",OATAlIitle_15/04/41 O.html?zon... 6/3/03 r"\ ~ Power of Attorney I, Denice Reich, hereby appoint Ward McMaken with my power of Attorney as to my personal matters, other than financial items, as he may deem appropriate. Dated 1Y // ~ ~ e Bvt?) Denice C. Reich Dated ih fr3 tcI~~cl- Ward McMaken ~.kWDttL N\tD\t U. ~Witr ~\'llD3