HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.ec.Volk Lot Split.15A-89r1
115v • ::. 5 lwl
TO: Mayor and Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
DATE:
June
16,
1989
RE:
Volk
Lot
Split /Final
PUD /GMQS
Exemption
SUMMARY: The Planning Department recommends that City Council
approve the consolidation, GMQS Exemption, Lot Split /Subdivision,
and Final PUD review with the conditions, as stated herein.
PREVIOUS ACTION: The Planning Commission, at their May 30, 1989
meeting, reviewed the conceptual PUD plan, stream margin review,
and consented to a two step consolidated review process for an
approximately one and one -half acre parcel in the Oklahoma Flats
area. The Commission approved of the proposal with conditions
which are listed in part V and VI of the Staff Comments section
of this memo. Additional conditions are also. recommended as
these pertain to the final PUD approval.
BACKGROUND: The adoption of Ordinance 7 in April enables the
consolidation of the four step conceptual and final PUD review
into a single two step review process pursuant to Section 7 -903
(C)(3). This applies to projects where it is determined that
significant policy and land use issues are not involved. However
the Commission or City Council may, during review, determine that
the application raises significant issues and should be subject
to full conceptual and final plan review, in which case
consolidation review shall not occur.
During the pre - application process the - Planning Director
recommended that consolidation be considered for this proposal.
The Planning Commission approved a two step consolidated review
process.
The proposal now requires City Council review for consolidation,
lot split /subdivision, final PUD, and GMQS Exemption.
APPLICANT: Richard W. Volk represented by Sunny Vann, Vann
Associates
LOCATION: Lots 1 through 8 and 11 through 20, block 3 of
Oklahoma Flats.
ZONING: R -30 PUD
APPLICANTS REQUEST: The applicant requests the approval to
subdivide an approximately one and one -half acre parcel located
in Oklahoma Flats. The application also requests a growth
management exemption, and final PUD approval.
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering: In a memo dated April 24, 1989, Jim Gibbard of the
Engineering Department has the following comment:
1. Any proposed development on Lot 2 of this submission is not
subject to Stream Margin Review.
2. The Engineering report submitted by Schmueser, Gordon and
Meyer has sufficiently satisfied the requirement that there will
be no rise in the base flood elevation from this development.
However, we would still recommend that the development on Lot 1
be required to have a foundation constructed with openings to
allow for unimpeded movement of flood waters, the design of which
would be subject to the approval by the Engineering Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. The submitted slope reduction calculations were checked and
were found to be correct.
4. The proposal for utility improvements is satisfactory.
5. The applicant has indicated that he will decrease the impact
that this development will have on traffic circulation by having
the driveway which will serve both lots come off from Spring
Street. We would like to point out that the streets in this area
are substandard in width and therefore there is an existing
circulation problem even before any further development. We would
recommend that the applicant be required to dedicate property for
the purpose of increasing the width of the right -of -way on both
Spring and Bay Streets. The existing right -of -way width for
Spring Street at this location is 20 feet and for Bay Street is
12 feet. The requirement for right -of -way width according to
Code section 24 -7 -1004 C.4.a.3., is 60 feet for a local street.
6. The applicant should be required to join a special
improvement district if one should ever be formed. Any special
improvement district which the applicant is required to join
should address improving the width of Spring Street in the entire
Oklahoma Flats Addition. The existing width is 17 feet and this
is substandard.
Environmental Health: In a memo dated April 17, 1989 from Lee
Cassin of the Environmental Health Department she noted that the
proposal is in compliance with Section 1 -2.3 of the Pitkin County
regulations on Individual Sewage Disposal Systems and Section 23-
55 of the Aspen Municipal code regarding connection to the
municipal water utility system. Additional comments are as
follows:
1. When constructed, the dwellings will have to comply with
stove and fireplace regulations and will have to obtain a permit
for any stoves or fireplaces from this department. Any
fireplaces must have gas logs.
2. Prior to any construction, the owner will have to determine
whether asbestos is present and will have to contact the Colorado
Health Department Air Pollution Control Division to find out what
air pollution permits, if any are needed. Measures such as
watering of disturbed dirt and prevention of mud carryout onto
city streets will most likely be required.
3. During construction, owners will have to comply with the City
of Aspen's noise ordinance, which sets lower limits for noise
between 10 pm and 7 am.
4. The owners are advised to contact this office for comment
should mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during
the excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials
off site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy
metals being present in the soil. This request is based upon
past experiences in dealing with mine waste.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District: In a memo dated April
18, 1989, Bruce Matherly made the following comments:
1. There is sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve this
project at this time.
2. District Rules and Regulations require a separate service
line for each residence.
3. Groundwater and infiltration into the service lines can be a
serious problem in this area. Therefore new service lines must
be put in place very carefully and connections must be very tight
fitting.
4. Connection fees must be paid prior to connection. The
applicant may contact the District's business office for cost
estimates and details.
Aspen Water: An April 13, 1989 memo from Jim Markalunas of the
Aspen Water Department, states that the water department can
provide water in sufficient quantity (capacity adequate) for the
2 lots. As stated by the application, a common service line will
be extended and 2 separate shut -off valves will be provided in
accordance with our policy. Water will be provided upon
application and payment of the prerequisite fees.
3
STAFF COMMENTS: Pursuant to Section 7 -903 (C) (3) the four review
procedures required of this application are being considered for
consolidation into a two step application. Your review is
required for GMQS exemption, lot split, final PUD, and approval
of consolidation.
I. GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION: Pursuant to Section 8-
104.C.i.a. of the Aspen Land Use Code the development of one
detached residential dwelling on a vacant lot formed by a lot
split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977 may be exempted by
the City Council. This proposal complies with this criterion.
II. LOT SPLIT: The criteria for a lot split are found in
Section 7- 1003.A.2. and are as follow:
Criterion a: The land is not located in a subdivision approved
by either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the
City Council, or the land is described as a metes and bounds
parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of
subdivision regulations by the City of Aspen on March 24, 1969.
RESPONSE: Lots 1 through 8 and 11 through 20, Block 3, are
located in the Oklahoma Flats Addition to the original Aspen
Townsite which was subdivided in 1946.
Criterion b: No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot
split, and both lots conform to the requirements of the
underlying zone district and the applicant commits that nay lot
for which development is proposed will contain an Accessory
Dwelling Unit. When there is demolition on the property which
makes it subject to the provision of Art. 5, Div. 7, Replacement
HOusing Program, the standards of that program shall supersede
these requirements.
RESPONSE: Only two (2) lots are proposed and comply with
all applicable dimensional requirements of the underlying R -30
zone district.
According to the application, the lots will be covenanted to
ensure that subsequent purchasers provide an accessory dwelling
unit. These covenants will be incorporated in the Applicant's
subdivision agreement and depicted on the final subdivision plat.
Article 5, Division 7, is not applicable as the proposal does not
entail the demolition of existing multi - family structures or
aggregation of separate parcels for development purposes.
Criterion c: The lot under consideration, or any part thereof,
was not previously the subject of an exemption under the
provisions of this article or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to
Sec. 8- 104(C)(1)(a).
4
RESPONSE: To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, the
property has not been the subject of any prior subdivision
exemption application or approval. The only final plat for these
lots was filed in 1946.
Criterion d: A subdivision plat is submitted and recorded after
approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted
for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt
of applicable approvals pursuant to this Article and growth
management allocation pursuant to Art. 8.
RESPONSE: According to the application "a final PUD
development plan and subdivision plat will be recorded upon
approval of the proposed development and completion of the review
process. The plat will include a prohibition against further
subdivision and a requirement that additional development comply
with the applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations."
Part III, Conceptual PUD review, has already been reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Commission. Because relevant issues were
discussed during conceptual review this portion is being provided
for your review to facilitate Final PUD review.
III. CONCEPTUAL PUD: The project site is zoned R -30 and PUD.
The purpose of PUD designation is to promote flexibility and
innovation in the development of land. Customarily, this type of
review occurs on land where natural features should be protected
or physical constraints may restrict efficient development.
Generally land designated for PUD review is within the flood
plain, needing stream margin review, has steep slopes, and /or
represents important community concerns. PUD review is a more
extensive review process that enables development to occur
compatible with particular features of the site.
Although PUD review is
proposal to build two
should only cause a
examined. However, it
right of way easements
2 must be reexamined.
elements of review that
necessary, the size of the site and the
single family homes with accessory units
limited set of land use issues to be
is necessary for this proposal to address
and the proposed building envelope on Lot
In addition there are several other
this proposal must address.
1. The application states that "the existing roads ... are
adequate to serve the proposed development..." However as noted
by the Engineering Department the roads, Bay and Spring Streets,
are substandard in width. PUD and subdivision review is the
appropriate time to 'review traffic circulation and the adequacy
of city services.
a. A housing survey of the Oklahoma Flats area showed that
along Spring Street, beginning at Gibson, 22 units (this includes
5
the 2 units proposed by this lot split) are accessed off this
street and 7 units are accessed by Bay Street. A reminder: those
units on Bay Street must use Spring Street.
The fire marshal has confirmed that there is a maneuverability
problem with the fire equipment but the emergency vehicle
operators did not report a problem. In addition, a check through
the 1989, 1988, and 1987 traffic reports did not uncover any
reported accidents.
b. The Planning Department believes it is inappropriate to
require this proposal to bear the burden of providing the total
amount of right of way to bring the streets up to code. If and
when redevelopment occurs in the area the property owners on the
other side of Spring and Bay Streets should provide the necessary
right of way. However the City should not allow a potentially
dangerous situation to persist. Therefore the applicant should
dedicate half of the required amount for right of way along both
Spring and Bay Streets. WpP ing Street is deficient by 40 feet
and Bay Street is deficient by 48 feet.• The proposed easements
should include 20 feet along Spring Street and 24 feet along Bay
Street stopping at the property line of 720 Bay Street. Although
the street continues into a dead end, the Volk property does not
border that portion of Bay Street.
Dedication of a right of way will only impact the side yard
setback requirements of Lot it As a result the proposed building
envelope on Lot 1 is slightly affected, approximately 5 feet.
C. Requiring the dedication of right of ways is a
prerequisite to bringing all the streets in Oklahoma Flats up to
code. If and when an improvement district is created or
redevelopment of the area should occur this property will already
comply with the Code.
2. The proposed development complies with the requirements of
the underlying R -30 zone district. Based on the R -30 zone
districts minimum lot area requirement of 30,000 square feet per
single - family dwelling unit, a maximum of 2 single - family
residences can be constructed on the property,
a. As noted above, the building envelope on Lot 1 is
affected, by approximately 5 feet, by the dedication of a right
of way.
b. Development on Lot 2, although meeting the setback
requirements for a R -30 zone, may overwhelm the existing home at
720 Bay Street. That parcel is 6187 square feet, a non-
conforming lot. The allowable floor area for a redevelopment is
3187.5 provided that the yard and height dimensional requirements
are met.
2
Let 2 is approximately 9 feet above the adjacent parcel and the
west side yard setback is 10 feet. The proposed building
envelope with a maximum allowable floor area of 5,806 square
feet, encourages a bulk and massing on the site that could
negatively impact the adjacent home and jeopardize the small
scale, historic neighborhood feeling of the Oklahoma Flats area.
Although 720 Bay Street has been identified by the historic
inventory, referral comments by Preservation Planner Roxanne
Eflin indicate that the structure may not be historic and may be
actually incorrectly listed on the inventory. The 1893 Birdseye
view map indicates many small historic structures occupied the
Oklahoma Flats neighborhood, the majority of which have since
been demolished or relocated. The small scale structures that
remain should be taken into consideration in reviewing character
altering large -scale development.
Pursuant to Section 7 -901, among the purposes of PUD review is to
encourage development that "improves the design, character and
quality of development; achieves a compatibility of land uses;
and provides procedures so that the type, design, and layout of
development encourages the preservation of natural and scenic
features." Additionally, Section 7 -903 B.4. provides for
variations in dimensional requirements. It is recomten404- thait>
the .side yard setback, on thh west side of Lot 2, be "doubled.!
Bulk and massing studies would help to determine if design
features, of a proposed development, could provide visual relief
for the adjacent parcel, however those are not available as this
proposal is only for a lot- split. It is important that the small
scale integrity of this area not be lost to new development or
set a precedent for redevelopment.
3. Lot 1 of the proposed lot
the flood plain of the Roaring
related to Stream Margin Review
and Zoning Commission. Stream
conditions which are attached.
split lies predominantly within
Fork River. Development issues
were discussed by the Planning
Margin review was approved with
4. According to the application, the "Site Development Plan is
compatible with the site's topography and minimal regrading will
be required. The majority of the site's existing vegetation will
be retained and additional landscaping will undoubtedly be
provided by subsequent purchasers to enhance privacy and to
improve the visual appearance of their residence." Every
attempt should be made to preserve the trees on Lot 1. As only
building envelopes are provided at this stage of review it is
difficult to determine whether development could avoid the trees.
The submitted site plan does not include a landscape plan. A
thorough landscape plan should demonstrate how the development
will mitigate any removal of mature vegetation on the site. A
tree removal permit must be obtained before a building permit for
the removal any other trees with a 6" caliper or more on both
lots.
7
5. The Slope Reduction map illustrates that approximately 62,810
square feet of land area .remains after reduction for steep
slopes. The Engineering Department has confirmed that the Slope
Reductions meet the Department's standards. As Lot 2 is
approximately 9 feet above the adjacent parcel, 720 Bay Street,
massing and bulk on Lot 2 must strive to mitigate potential
problems because of the topographic features of the site. This
was discussed in number 2 above.
6. The application states that "the existing... utilities are
adequate to serve the proposed development..." The Sanitation
District has noted that groundwater infiltration can be a serious
problem in this area thus requiring careful inspection of new
service lines, preferably a site inspection should occur before
the new lines are covered up.
7. The application also explains that " no adverse impacts upon
the area's air or water quality are anticipated." The
Environmental Health Department requires permits for new stoves
or fireplaces and shall require watering disturbed dirt and
prevention of mud carryout during construction.
8. The application correctly states that "pursuant to Section 5-
205 D.9. no central open space is required... 61 percent of the
property will remain undeveloped." It should also be noted that
the proposed site development for Lot 1 preserves the western
views of the existing home located at 720 Bay Street.
9. As noted in the application, the applicant will submit
material that is pertinent to final PUD review to Council. The
general requirements of PUD review approval are similar to those
of the subdivision /lot split standards are discussed in part IV.
IV. Final PUD /Subdivision: PUD review invokes review of the
proposal pursuant to Section 7 -1004 subdivision review although a
thorough subdivision review is unnecessary. Section 7 -903 B.
sets out the general requirements for a development application
for PUD. The review criteria for both sections are very similar
therefore both are covered within this section. They are as
follows:
Criterion a. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with
the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The proposed single family lots are consistent
with the Plan's single - family residential designation. Although
there are trail alignments along Bay and Spring Streets the Rio
Grande /Herron Park trail that abuts the east end of Lot 2 and
cuts across the end of Bay Street to cross the river appears to
meet the intent of the Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Plan.
11-
4,
Criterion b. The proposed development shall be consistent with
the character of existing land uses in the area.
RESPONSE: The proposed development is consistent in use, 2
single family dwelling units, but there is serious concern
regarding the size of the building envelopes and their proximity
to existing development. This issue of concern was fully
discussed in part III 2 b.
Criterion c. The proposed development shall not adversely affect
the future development of surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: Many of the parcels have been developed but this
does not preclude redevelopment. Right of way easements are
necessary to upgrade the substandard street widths and to meet
increasing needs if redevelopment should occur. This is
discussed in part III 1.
Criterion d. Final approval shall only be granted to the
development to the extent to which GMQS allotments are obtained
by the applicant.
RESPONSE: This application complies with Section 8-
104.C.1.a. of the Aspen Land Use Code that exempts this proposal
from GMQS.
Criterion e. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance
with all applicable requirements of the Land Use Regulations.
RESPONSE: The proposed development has been designed to
comply with the applicable requirements of the underlying R -30
zone district.
Criterion f. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on
land unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage,
rock or soil creep, mud flow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide,
steep topography or any other natural hazard or other condition
that will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the
residents in the proposed subdivision.
RESPONSE: Lot 1 of the proposal is located within the one
hundred year flood plain and was reviewed by the Planning and
Zoning Commission at their May 30 meeting. Upon review, staff
and the Commission approved the Stream Margin Review with several
conditions that are intended to eliminate potential problems due
to flooding. Those conditions are listed in part V.
There are some steep slopes on the parcel but the building
envelopes avoid development on these slopes. See attached Slope
Reduction analysis.
9
Criterion g. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to
create spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies, duplication or
premature extension of public facilities and unnecessary public
costs.
RESPONSE: All costs of the extension of utilities to serve
the project will be borne by the Applicant. The water department
can provide water in sufficient quantity (capacity adequate) for
the 2 lots. water will be provided upon application and payment
of the prerequisite fees. The Sanitation Department has indicated
that there is sufficient line and treatment capacity to serve
this project at this time.
Criterion h. Pursuant to Section 7 -1004 C.3.a. there are several
improvements that the subdivision must provide. Those related to
this proposal are: improvements of a collector street, water,
sewer, electric, telephone, natural gas, easements, sidewalk,
curb and gutter, fire protection, and drainage.
RESPONSE: The applicant has sufficiently addressed these
requirements within the application and is subject to review by
pertinent City agencies. Right of way easements to help upgrade
the substandard street widths, identified during this review,
were required as a condition of conceptual approval and are
necessary for final. A full discussion of the necessity for
right of way easements is presented in the above Conceptual PUD
review part III 1.
V. Planning and Zoning Commission May 30 Stream Margin Review
approval with the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a individual building permit for Lot 1,
covenants to be approved by the Engineering Department, shall be
submitted with the final plat to ensure that the lowest floor of
all structures are located a minimum of 2 feet above the base
flood elevation, and that foundations are engineered to prevent
flotation, collapse or lateral movement.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the development on Lot
1 shall be required to have a foundation or basement constructed
to comply with the current FEMA regulations and to the approval
of the Engineering Department.
VI. RECOMMENDED MOTION: I move to approve the consolidation,
GMQS Exemption, Lot Split /Subdivision„ and Final PUD review for
the Volk property, with the following conditions:
Prior to submittal of the final plat, the reserved dedication
�aeright of way easements, 24 feet along Bay Street and 20 feet
along Spring Street, shall be shown.
If a special improvement district is formed the applicant is
10
required to join for the improvement of the width of Spring
Street in the entire Oklahoma Flats Addition.
3. The side yard setback, on the west side of Lot 2, shall be
doubled.
4. Every attempt should be made to preserve the trees on Lot 1.
A thorough landscape plan is required, before a building permit,
demonstrating how development will mitigate the removal of the
I ature vegetation on site.
5. A ee removal , pursuant to 13 -76 of the Municipal
Code, is necessary for t removal of any tree with a 6" or
greater caliper.
The following are other conditions that pertain to final PUD in
addition to those approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission:
6. Prior to the issuance of a CO the dwellings shall have
complied with stove and fireplace regulations and will have to
obtain a permit for any stoves or fireplaces from the
Environmental Health Department. Any fireplaces must have gas
logs.
7. Prior to a building permit: the owner will determine whether
asbestos is present and will have to contact the Colorado Health
Department Air Pollution Control Division to find out what air
pollution permits, if any are needed; and measures such as
watering of disturbed dirt and prevention of mud - carryout onto
city streets will be required, techniques to be approved by the
Environmental Health Department.
8. During construction, owners will have to comply with the City
of Aspen's noise ordinance, which sets lower limits for noise
between 10 pm and 7 am.
9. Prior to the issuance of a CO, a separate service line for
each residence is required subject to the approval of the
Sanitation District.
10. Before the service lines are covered an inspection by the
Sanitation District is required as groundwater and infiltration
into the service lines can be a serious problem in this area.
11. Sewer connection fees must be paid prior to connection.
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, for both lots, a
detailed stormwater drainage plan will be submitted.
13. A final plat shall be filed prior to the issuance of a
building permit for either lot and shall include:
11
a. covenants that future purchasers and builders provide an
accessory dwelling unit per single family home; and
b. an indication that no further subdivision may be granted
for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt
of applicable approvals pursuant to Article 7 and growth
management allocation pursuant to Article 8.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
----------- ------- - - - - --
ljl /yolk
12
4I 4 40
TO: Aspen City Council
THRU: Robert S. Anderson, Jr., City Manager
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planner
RE: Second Reading, Ordinance 43, Volk Vested Rights
DATE: August 9, 1989
SUMMARY: The Planning Department recommends Final approval of
Ordinance 43 (Series of 1989) on Second Reading.
BACKGROUND: At the June 26, 1989 City Council meeting, Council
approved with conditions the Volk lot split on lots 1 -8 & 11 -20,
Block 3 Oklahoma Flats. Pursuant to Section 6 -207, the applicant
also requested to establish vested property rights which require
a Vested Rights Ordinance and two readings before Council.
City Council unanimously passed Ordinance 43 on first reading on
July 10, 1989.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council
approve the Second Reading of the Vested Rights Ordinance for the
Volk lot split on lots 1 -8 & 11 -20, Block 3 Oklahoma Flats.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance 43 (Series 1989)
on Second Reading."
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATIONS:
R.... r
DRDINANCE NO
(Series of 198 )
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN VESTING THE
DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FOR THE VOLK LOT SPLIT LOTS 1 -8 & 11 -20, BLACK
3 OKLAHOMA FLATS SITE SPECIFIC PLAN /FINAL PLAT
WHEREAS, Richard Volk has submitted a final plat to the
Aspen City Council for approval of the Volk Lot Split project;
and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council reviewed and approved said
final plat at a duly noticed public hearing on June 26, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the final plat for the
Volk Lot Split constitutes the site specific development plan for
the property; and
WHEREAS, Richard Volk has requested that the development
rights for the Volk Lot Split, as defined and approved in the
Volk Lot Split Subdivision Agreement, site specific development
plan /final plat, more specifically described in Exhibit "A ", be
vested pursuant to Section 6 -207 of the Aspen Municipal Code in
the site specific development plan /final plat; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council desires to vest development
rights in the Volk Lot Split site specific development plan /final
plat pursuant to Section 6 -207 of the Municipal Code of the City
of Aspen for a period of three years from the effective date
hereof subject to the terms and conditions contained in the
Subdivision of the Volk Lot Split, site specific development
plan /final plat and herein below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
Section 1
The City Council of the City of Aspen, as a consequence of
its approval of the Volk Lot Split, Lots 1 -8 & 11 -20, Block E,
Oklahoma Flats Lot Split and site specific development plan /final
plat, and pursuant to Section 6 -207 the Municipal Code of the
City of Aspen, hereby vests development rights in the Volk Lot
Split site specific development plan /final plat for a period of
three (3) years from the effective date hereof. However, any
failure to abide by any of the terms and conditions attendant to
this approval shall result in the forfeiture of said vested
property rights. Failure to properly record all plats and
agreements required to be recorded by this Code shall also result
in the forfeiture of said vested property rights; and
Section 2
The approval granted hereby shall be subject to all rights
of referendum and judicial review; except that the period of time
permitted by law for the exercise of such rights shall not begin
to run until the date of publication of this ordinance following
its adoption.
Section 3
Zoning that is not part of the site specific development
plan approved hereby shall not result in the creation of a vested
property right.
2
Section 4
Nothing in this approval shall exempt the site specific
development plan from subsequent reviews and approvals required
by this approval of the general rules, regulations and ordinances
or the City of Aspen provided that such reviews and approvals are
not inconsistent with this approval.
Section 5
The establishment of a vested property right shall not
preclude the application of ordinances or regulations which are
general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to
land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not
limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical
codes. In this regard, as a condition of this site development
approval, the applicant shall abide by any and all such building,
fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, unless an
exemption therefrom is granted in writing.
Section 6
If any section, sub - section, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 7
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any
right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to
3
1.
the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be
continued and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 8
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the
day of 1989, at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to
which hearing notice of the same shall be published once in a
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by
the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of
, 1989.
ATTEST:
William L. Stirling, Mayor
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of
, 1989.
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
LL.volkordl
William L. Stirling, Mayor
4
NOW
PUBLIC NOTICE
RE: VOLK LOT SPLIT CONSOLIDATED CONCEPTUAL PUD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, May 30, 1989 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M. before
the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission, 2nd Floor Meeting Room,
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado to consider an
application submitted by Sunny Vann on behalf of his client,
Richard Volk requesting Consolidated Conceptual Submission PUD
approval of a lot split. Also requested are Stream Margin Review
and GMQS Exemption approval. The applicant proposes to divide an
approximately 1.5 acre parcel of land consisting of Lots 1 -8 &
11 -20, Block 3 Oklahomas Flats into two lots. This parcel is
bordered on the north by Francis Street, on the south by Bay
Street and on the west by Spring Street.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin County
Planning Office, 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, (303) 920 -5090.
_s /C Welton Anderson. Chairman
Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission
r°
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department P
RE: Volk Lot Split Conceptual PUD /GMQS Exemption /Stream Margin
Review
DATE: April 24, 1989
Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. Any proposed development on lot 2 of this submission is not
subject to Stream Margin Review.
2. The engineering report submitted by Schmueser, Gordon and
Meyer has sufficiently satisfied the requirement that there will
be no raise in the base flood elevation from this development.
However, since there is a potential for more development in the
floodplain in this area and therefore a potential for a raise in
the base flood elevation, we recommend that the development on
lot 1 be required to have a foundation constructed with openings
to allow for unimpeded movement of flood waters, the design of
which would be subject to the approval by the Engineering
Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. The submitted slope reduction calculations were checked and
were found to be correct.
4. The proposal for utility improvements is satisfactory.
5. The applicant has indicated that he will lessen the impact
that this development will have on traffic circulation by having
the driveway which will serve both lots come off from Spring
Street. We would like to point out that the streets in this area
are substandard in width and therefore there is an existing
circulation problem even before any further development. We
would recommend that the applicant be required to dedicate
property for the purpose of increasing the width of the right -of-
way on both Spring and Bay Streets. The existing right -of -way
width for Spring Street at this location is 20 feet and for Bay
Street is 12 feet. The requirement for right -of -way width
according to Code section 24 -7 -1004 C. 4. a. 3., is 60 feet for a
local street.
6. The applicant should be required to join a special improvement
district if one should ever be formed.
jg /volk
cc: Chuck Roth
1�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department `P
RE: Volk Lot Split Conceptual PUD /GMQS Exemption /Stream Margin
Review
DATE: April 24, 1989
Having reviewed the above application and made a site inspection,
the Engineering Department has the following comment:
1. The engineering report submitted by Schmueser, Gordon and
Meyer has sufficiently satisfied the requirement that there will
be no raise in the base flood elevation from this development.
However, we would still recommend that the development on lot 1
be required to have a foundation constructed with openings to
allow for unimpeded movement of flood waters, the design of which
would be subject to the approval by the Engineering Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
jg /volk
cc: Chuck Roth
TO: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: May 9, 1989
RE: Addendum to Volk Lot Split Conceptual PUD /GMQS
Exemption /Stream Margin Review
Any special improvement district which the applicant is required
to join should address improving the width of Spring Street in
the entire Oklahoma Flats Addition. The existing width is 17
feet and this is substandard.
jg /volk2
cc: Chuck Roth
"CASE DIS POS IT ION :
Reviewed by:
ran P£,Z
city coun?._l
`,,` I ;`:�.TMNIS �J�J� A, f �1.j�1�i'N'i'1r 4y, of ^�'fY�J 4, �/f.�.. °�✓"'I'�%ii. P11,,..7^
1) The first floor elevation shall be raised five feet
above the average grade of the building site as shown
in the Elevation Certificate. The foundation shall be
constructed with openings to allow for the unimpeded
movement of flood waters, as described in the Elevation
Certificate FEMA regulations, subject to approval of
construction drawings, by the Engineering Department and
Planning Office prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
2) All existing trees shall be retained and there shall be
no change in the existing grade of the site, as repre-
sented in the application.
3) The Army Corps of Engineers shall be consulted to
determine whether a 404 or Nationwide permit is needed.
A copy of that permit or letter stating no permit is
required, shall be submitted to the Engineering
Department and Building Department prior to issuance of
a building permit.
Reviewer. By: F.spen P &Z City Council
RECOMMMDATION: The Planning Office agrees with the Engineering
Department that the construction procedures should include
openings to facilitate movement of flood water. We recommend
approval of the Gross Stream Margin Review subject to the
conditions as follows:
1) The first floor elevation shall be raised five feet
above the average grade of the building site as shown
in the Elevation Certificate. The foundation shall be
constructed with openings to allow for the unimpeded
movement of flood waters, as described in the Elevation
Certificate FEMA regulations, subject to approval of
construction drawings by the Engineering Department and
Planning Office prior to issuance of a Building Permit.
2) All existing trees shall be retained and there shall be
no change in the existing grade of the site, as repre-
sented in the application.
3) The Army Corps of Engineers shall be consulted to
determine whether a 404 or Nationwide permit is needed.
A copy of that permit or letter stating no permit is
required, shall be submitted to the Engineering
Department and Building Department prior to issuance of
a building permit.
If the applicant is not willing
approval, then we recommend that he
the FEMA map revision is undertaken
be considered.
5
to meet the conditions of
table this application until
and a lower ground floor can
ASPEN *PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
To: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
From: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Department ajF C
Date: April 17, 1989
Re: Volk Lot Split Conceptual PUD /GMQS Exemption /Stream Margin
Review
Parcel ID# 2737- 073 -09 -002 & 2737- 073 -10 -004
The Aspen /Pitkin Environmental Health Department has reviewed the
above - mentioned land use submittal for the following concerns.
The authority for this review is granted to this office by the
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office.
SEWAGE TREATMENT AND COLLECTION:
Service by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District is in
compliance with Section 1 -2.3 of the Pitkin County Regulations On
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems policy to "require the use of
public sewer systems wherever and whenever feasible, and to limit
the installation of individual sewage disposal systems only to
areas that are not feasible for public sewers ".
ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR WATER NEEDS:
Provision of water by the Aspen Water Department is in compliance
with Section 23 -55 of the Aspen Municipal Code requiring such
projects "which use water shall be connected to the municipal water
utility system ".
AIR QUALITY•
When constructed, the dwellings will have to comply with stove and
fireplace regulations, and will have to obtain a permit for any
stoves or fireplaces from this department. Any fireplaces must
have gas logs.
Prior to any construction, the owner will have to determine whether
asbestos is present, and will have to contact the Colorado Health
Department Air Pollution Control Division to find out what air
pollution permits, if any are needed. Measures such as watering
of disturbed dirt and prevention of mud - carryout onto city streets
will most likely be required.
NOISE:
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -2020
ASPEN *PITKIN
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Page 2
April 15, 1989
During construction, owners will have to comply with the City of
Aspen's noise ordinance, which sets lower limits for noise between
10 pm and 7 am.
CONTAMINATED SOILS:
The owners are advised to contact this office for comment should
mine waste, waste rock or mine dumps be encountered during the
excavation phase of the project. Disposal of such materials off -
site is discouraged due to the possibility of excessive heavy
metals being present in the soil.
This is not a requirement, but simply a request based on past
experience in dealing with mine waste and possible negative impacts
to humans.
/volk.lur
130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925 -2020
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation (District
565 North Mill Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Tele. (303) 925-3601
April 18, 1989
Leslie Lamont
Planning Office
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Volk Lot Split
Dear Leslie:
Tele. (303) 925 -2537
The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District has sufficient line
and treatment capacity to serve this project at this time.
The District's Rules and Regulations do require that there be a
separate service line to each residence. The application was not
clear as to whether or not this would be done. We would also like
to emphasize that groundwater and infiltration can be a serious
problem in this area.
The fees to connect to the District's system will be due prior to
connection and the applicant can contact the District's business
office for cost estimates and details.
Sincerely,
'Z,� -�,, ---t
Bruce Matherly
District Manager
APR 19
V
ASPEN WATER DEPARTMENT
TO: Leslie Lamont
FROM: Jim Markalunas
SUBJECT. Volk Lot Split
DATE: 4-13-$9
- "- --------------------------------------------
We h ve r viewed the application for the Volk Lot Split Conceptual
PUD /G Exemption /Stream Margin Review, and as stated in the
application on page 16, water can be provided by the Water Dept. in
sufficient quantity (capacity adequate) to provide service for the 2 lots. As
stated by the application, a common service line will be extended and 2
separate shut -off valves will be provided in accordance with our policy.
Water will be provided upon application and payment of the prerequisite
fees.
cc: Vann Associates
Stevens Group
SCHMUESER GORDA. IEYER
May 19, 1989
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann Associates, Inc.
230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
RE: Volk Properties
Dear Sunny:
lul lams ^VUJI l0, ouno &I&
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945 -1004
9his letter is being written to address the question of the legality of
havinq a basement built under the home for the Volk Properties in the
Oklahoma Flats area. From a technical standpoint, it is possible to
provide flood- proofing for a home that has the basement lower than the
base flood elevation. Specifically, in this case, it appears possible
that the building (basement) can be constructed to be water tight, with
wall substantially impermeable to the passage of water, and structural
components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydro-
dynamic loads and effects of buoyancy which could be caused by the
flood depths, pressure velocities, impact and uplift forces associated
with the base flood.
I have attached a couple sections from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's (FEMA's) pamphlet "National Flood Insurance Program and Rela-
ted Regulations" (revised October 1, 1986, Amended #1, June 30, 1987).
In short, these regulations, or sections thereof, discuss the ability
from a legal standpoint (according to FEMA regulations) the contruction
of a basement below the base flood elevation. The first portion which
has been highlighted on Page 214, in context, reflects the same infor-
mation as the City of Aspen's Code regarding the elevation of the
lowest floor for a residential structure. However, the last sentence
of this particular section allows for variances and exceptions. The
highlighted areas under the variances and exceptions specifically deals
with the construction of basements below the base flood elevation. As
can be interpreted from this information, as long as the building is
flood - proofed and is so certified by a registered professional engi-
neer, then the legality of having a basement with the floor elevation
below the base flood elevation is acceptable. With the construction of
the Volk Property, we will be able to provide the certification.
I hope this information serves its intended purpose. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
SCHMUESER
OJRDON ME R, INC.
JSS:lec /8103
Enclosures
Simonson, P.E.
ngineer
o^m0m a3m=no �,w^,�E�3 am�..,� -ioao a�mw o- oo`wwo-a n`o'`W^3�cnaw x��awwo�.. o< •a+
mar ^!y m0� ° Sy _ _
Aw G70 m °6�A yA y SACyv60'G >mm757 "�°,.,3�Y'�°- ,E °S°'••"Gt3Pv3 =�. N�C7�rw�wo,y'•�'•9 .0. O
7 S00 w_ -a0 n ?, a y_ Gp Evyi a3 o o0� 'to�w�n j. c�00.7+77Q5- 77pOy? wE<y Pwy fJ
a 3a� _
�O. 7E. ww° ccw`" o' o.°_., c, �cmc, c', 3�:°° 3,-., ,7oya,°^�m =.e�m°.m�53��'o a�w_Qm
enmaaaan "Iw �•-v �D.w 07o 3S7 amwc'7 �•m7•"7£o•w °p0 a "y aow Q ?�y
n o
m.°. o^o`:w �° -+ °fD `" m'u xin S,- •,m" °�� 3.-w `'o <.3 ym CC -. �,�N '0nm0, wmo �iP
y >•� ^57oo�`y.,3 A�O.Y FO �wp0� <' 75,,., yC n S•U m.. :o W�°o >3 E -cam <w <0
b73mP7p �. Sm ,m wwma 07Dyti °n C.-Soy <7On�= .---.n o> mw'w+ - =<`P a_.
nwo• .goo ;+�. o�- �o -oo�w. �A_ yo =.wo mop °off; ,In_ p<,o °o C_°� °Go wya°0
P .. y' 0ww7.� wa Pa,y�S` Qn0 n ^�a -o. wC°•On Nam W,
oao 09. ?oo S°7mmw a`roNw you mE°0� aw �` °�n.Ary Gw- 'A mO�NOOC�' om omaw0
o °° wm`n o- <7m X07 ° .+ ww w �°.w Fy7Ew° =Eo >Ro xw3�.��o
a<S �mm °oaa�='�tiymy Nosen�wo =.0 n�'"'SSm'7P��'e 0o7�'a3 „o°ww�wo�wao
om���. °,y a3 °�w >� 3n7 �°wiPw N�n ❑ -m �mE 77 ,ca w hj7oc,7
wo'o P; wowcw5.»°7� y,.w -°n° o�mc�w `Dw� °o < ° °wmwwo^ y °y. ' <c�w�
"70 0 �30'7�7CSn o" n 70 7n-i06 "� 7 a= (ywm77po S<- a -.'<O Q�a�� 7 n
N ay -,m nN a mymwa a w. Na .. 7aa�,7 ow :'7 u;r Sw a� S
"°a ocn°omo�a ° <°P <P3�nn ^�< :cbd",O�r,,ni.,=rmyw9,�-tjA� �5ow ^�w`� °m o
�, 7n7m °w�, mSy Hm`'+�0���0 `E�mmc� wo, cw-P1mmxw m- 0•N'.00.07...;Gw nn-,Gn
�ay�^CoyovopEym7Eo_w° -'. ego o�79y�oE7'7 y' >`7_�. as a`�m 007�am ?m Ow Qmw o �O �'o�
m °'ywnw0 mow°. ^a; °., n., y`0' S `°a`°I'm ��'mw ^P7wwc �oaa�m wcw� N >oco`'c �aoa
w y Ono moc Sm Ic ac E�Ic_ Qo• w 7'+ °� 07i o[7 tip tDO V? n
- :SEn790 b . O7 'v n --p, nmO6n Q3µ nPEi 371- O .. <`.=. c-m 7 �P a a
_ry t0�o S7'- „w��9tn u7i .C, ci `�W'St �w S�'m 0m =°CAS a�kn W o 7'�?S 7m"S0 rw.SO° A
,^_w :°�^aw0 m•i�...W -Oi Ow�f7i Ma a�r,an ,3" >cn, `-w 5n,^pC Oym_'w OymO�^ S3 A
°na< °�.m9maRS� wo,m���OO.= n�.E °nP °�ax'c+ °P= mP' °.(pam°7E.aw 7 >��3�e�y°'�o S
501,= °1 -.1S w w^0"7'r°�_9 E_.S ��C° 7'am ^a�cn.7y <7 EpOw p" ^S_ ° <7 ,=N ° � 3070 °'mom
onoo�w.°7 oo.w tj Sm� °m ^^"iPm w ^w SE <°0= <mm"E3 F ?j Q3o o`o 73£ ° 7 £ w�"�- pw y. o
=."aw Fmoow�a�oP �'�'oo •°'m �°'�oo °o o!^�amoarn�y'�J o0
S7_E 7wam 0w Oo 0.0 9mc. o�- _ 7 °� SOa .7,7 -7 7 >?`^y�n00 P
,n. 5.07'°' =`P °,w Paomww a0 ao °opc"oa =.�.�m °i °'- " >3 ° <,°o..c"o -; c"" wayw�'3 �. a'� i
vc°�7� 'am _^.o ° y°a��uN �,y o .^_007.° ca•�'c° a?. •>-�R ?.o =v S7. m'3 �ow a
_o <n677 wow.0 o"y '�707�P7.oOo 3m5o _o H >w w a7•G�
-, •, y 7 w- 7 m
9 Na Ww 0 S" S6 Ri o ?.J 1 C y o< m 3 �" • H o p om0 <�� 0 7 7m ; � o^m GO7^�ryCywM3. . o o y ^ m o?mc Mm.mo $°Aa 0^0 - I° -In w m " 0x V n -0 60 =0 e : 7Oy x"7w a� <
M a °±a O y o` 0o m m
1 o a o Ga c.°Va ° n °°o o" �°<'I
7 7. mm . - � �o o o.0 n^w
m
wn�3�N m`o�yayEyo`mom a�= om �y 337g °oa5ywcmoSoc�w ^'om"aw ID
yw0 °`vO
ma,- y "Pag'>:_ °y s Saw ^o 7c Nnro E�'y�mmaw°w3oiw ac Q0 ° n
noway a a0wy?'m °„ o Cr w w'wwQ °oM,�mow ywa? °SmQ <w'.'�; ^oO'nro�P97 0
wa�w� w0 nQ o y Cry_n n,° 3 n3. m o:°_o° o
oti n °y < ?7 "], m3 p,C77'o "��F�oayy P°, n, � m
C_�n iP av oo c C��> O7 c. cy. V y> Sa nnn Pa,�o V7 3 mmm
O O"O oa °
ow0Rya0o
0 0 7 °7 m� w °
wS m ° n
�OO D rn <ol O?y a< m ��n° a ' - 0 ° '-; 7
m
0
o �On a = O a
0
.r ^
v, o = <_ - •a-EE -'_. p ._, ^� Ey <. - >-a 0I< y m 0 ^waw
ti ^7'.'0000°..0p -w wam'rloo7op`, ,•'+°, •i p,. -1owm -.0 �`�.0��° 0..07w O..rnO
Sy ava7oc+?o =Wa SNEf°].w a �• -'� -an ND a,y �.6nP C. r7ayt<P�Sanyy 7H ao- o'P'wop`°.(°Ja
3WnwF A � n ,3^o
oS7 = w 00 -.n C "An£'7 'I300 ` 3_
I °E =7C w m< ° 'e�=] <9'.,.T=. °'.o=-�' `-EG " e��^ 1 enca •+ e0 R7^�o 0
o o °emQ
3 „ 7w o°� C. i o o a
w So S- 3 -, 595 Inc. ao wco`w�'`'n
n n„ y0 EQ o 3
O 7 w n 0 3 C w 7 0
70 Nonrt� �7pNOn o.o an3�nEx3n =o. `•+y,° Ow,�E, y
0 n�na7pw °Oa_'-1 *1 °0 ..boa wN?'.�o ° <=' >a,cm
c- n 7
0C° '��a0 a-a ,p C.� n..yap" w?. E. 77 -. iow Z- .�.
pwp 7't _.�7o0 ? 9`n in -• Q�,S_w
a7ws� •^,0o �.^, ^waa9 - 3 "'- cS7nr�c�.i� ^AnN o7 ° =E�,�,7O9o7a -'
onw o°woa- 0 Pomp -�w �m y0w aao0w o�.P0
w ^O °7 mm 7 0 A6a� 7 ?�N -,=> >ww 0 3mSm °, ?� p7n,j 5 2 •, 3.� o� n
7�0' _3.<o °aG `°0 a°oadv ,-0 �<? -N 07 ao' v..," �- �<'- o ^= o°' ^-' ^w ..aN n
C. ^3m.,ayo _; =0cm`s = _3,?', '°7Naoa >" `<ioO =.3 n�•3£oDOC. ym.w,7 m` w,
w'a <D Y 3.YO m�.G O`w-.-''O�O SO y W OCR y 3"-'na o6C W �O O' PAL =CG o7 y aaN a 0'
N
w
N
H
m
,tram o,. =w c'' -wom Yaw- -•w,o� .00a`a<•wv'mOSO•i� ?A =.9 6 y,0 0'
•O �e��aipH - 0amw 07
o 3wy=� o.
mmo-Ea =M ' Rao�E.� = °
„ o
F�c ^mv cw {'a��c.Gp7RVOo �.wy > > o,- .3?.'o am `^..p �7'ao3yoozn. 'w°'yw,
aa�¢ SB�aoa °o_. °.mwrow�o ^.°„Y°o
�t'p �p >AEC�O mo N P a m N• w, A< a :, 79wnW <�d-1 a7�m''.Y7 to �_ °.aYm°°'°6'C
Sw°
oo_' -.OV iw'nY�� ^3 m` npywwGaao.<8.�, on
woR Sun, oSCtiwc. w•' -7'pw°
pY'Gn^ an O £mm C `m a wop " •y w < n= N.'-. O C:
7m ma7 7aaOmm7` mm pW 7�0 y yC,w•� 7 -.SSm Y�.Y �l t7pBY6w S.o.y 7.+°
mm ymy 7E OOtmpOq pm07 Qp' °`" �°.o "m atj timpOCnm�mtp ymOG mmOOrTi'�N a O•W a9 No
pp r °w nm,� ^0 ¢x.p a•c7Em m' p aov .. °_. w �B �c Y B p,B�+w�ymm�o ^p^wo .o as
ao owp<_9`°oom S�E°.;at�s S000w ' vwym'_^' E. oo3Bo•w,o�o2.°.a7.wC °�voW�3^•an
a °m7m 3 w mBs oaY Yptpnra70 c ^p0 g`-a _ •,< o
v ?� w3Io �7 �ar..,O mi vm £,om w °w�3 °o� Em?m ^O.pmwcr`a�'u`9,.9 w?.s °'p?'. 'm�'yMa
33 m ?� ?cnwv�w`` ? m ^o OooP a :0OCmo a m , 0 O o 5 i B mm o3 w
',D p•m m` 9 ^'p '-^. " --ow^ O wane P.<^ w h]AY^
pm Ym ?om<.W.y pB. fin" m'B 0 mo memo Bm <e•Yo„ o cmaa
�y.�.°+p,m9`•mtim7tn'�'2 m mwm o o7
p� o W`p'Y. ie7 SP'. a m,'d•'�
p^Oap,�cw.7 np wm Ymw Smow�+a°' 0 v H ao wD w- Op, H
^o^�icm` wC o�°'oB <wpi n m 7�n ` o mD C00 raL+w O W opm o t,0 Aa o
m O rap p ^ w r �my aom C
s y m w m ra N D WU ,°,
wry 0 W Om` `t7oxm- aBo?a�� o3 :.�<cm
Y y m
�ottmm:apa"<S�.m''�.Y
Ynacw+p G7 ^ozY � <�.n ^•.Ory000 �.m Y��� B`.<oin� wY " 1p too
h7wpp`<p�tYp;v E.�pYpwmoao oYyo�sw P- On,°'t -3ti w ^ a mom
M Y 7 E w w 7 m'° O -°i B w.° ti w m w.0
w omm7m m`mCp 7o,7 B ya 7.m y9p7m m xpa�np y�YH° MyMW y
E m w 'pt iwc W p °w O G �, Y 3 v w_ B w c c_ o w l° w' p0 N =p
SNOew.n��m W.a.m ¢C� yMa
O Wpo Oa pm w'C 9^,.t 7.7^w
7 oDmn •, °•O° ?= �;-'`ti5�.op-'`•yO .per°. m��
m p m no m Vi M. n m o w p Da
_ c maw m
t. YoY�w p¢7 cmtp i 3 "�
'pm M ° mupm wC""w °m m
tj
C mSrypw S7G C,o ^°ism <m ^cp•G
Y wa'<O�m nprr.O w..Y DD tiOr..Y
yp�• tmpa p`^C..o mmYYm
Y
O . amp ° <aS
��� o c = o m m C -m a
0 0 y7y •,5 m°� E w a M° Y Oa oO 0
�oC Ypw of
Sawwp 0,an
p o
UZ 7o°wmmw� v°�ra°c�.Ew
0 0° a o d° a °. o m w.' F° m
zrw
on-Mn WvVm6WmW'(gO Cmm °w..p °'�L..wp paO �. t�Y�.p OntJAw O'¢ Gm aaO Nw0nB r0-ba wfR
mCY�.�,..w P+ n"No Z n nrr0 00 Ap -ON�¢W Y a-' ao -=V aE 7�B..w 6O 0 '
6wrC �a97tpiw O.^•�°i� -m.°., •7 ^w ui W Gmcn -< m7� -. -.003 7
W =�n0 7w
B o0C°,° W m p90"ompow Cpo ¢Y v E n
yam°w•w3?'n?�'.aofnwOEM.`.•Ei3 m °�� SR -. _ �oOp7,C„ ^n i.�+mmOO��n - 0 pp7
m �-.rB �,o fD',< <SOct'p >'w��'B _B'o mc+m m"p rc P_'<y �.7 .- c"goo•.p E -.y o'7°
.W+S ap yp c. °a °no° mp�.pp on? .m X�p x p01M n.Cm .. apm 09'm H�'..W 7m m 0'°
ow <wow�m�E05':'°,voaaWm°_o`� "a �oy.•io."Rwt'pv7•vops, :°m�yom °m3 °w�<pw �a�
Y n.'pm rn Snr 1 moWr <w G-.w O ° w W°am OC Gpp.- .� w7fD EP!7 :_� W C6
O So m S p m n vpi w tVYp C r' W p B p- O O. p C 7 F" m m ° U° O A 6 ° O a m w `< o
'M P--. P--. wIm �'C+BB 0y �?- p=I= � ^!" Yw�w 77 ^m W`� 7a6°i CwyHm a� mQ B y
�nY °7 G M0 am 1 w m°•'<r7 W �n0 ^m a a <y'+m '�. � w m cow
C m`wo"w aDyH t°pp B C m w p W xvp C:am
¢� m=.690 E mC� w'G O'w'm aD 767 a ow ^v °�np¢,m�71'f da
y o m YmyS
m
?'wwmmm7 °ECG
mwNc mx +p pmo'noo0aup g�a�ywwv m o °c.°Y co oz E.ow R x oM oayo° oo o <C a o ° a o . °3s a a w O pG aP wmo�. c °�^gym
m pCCama°9 :n7 �opg w m�p j 7 c wo°¢_c
.w a ,
,°p< yBwww:; 0_Om ELM m 6�';C Oy 7w.Y w'.�CYw iG n0 to Y= Gm to ^'G an 7owm'mowtaD t<pr �Gw
y p = C 7 d B °• h w w 7OaCmCo R o�a B 0 � w°°." R w
a OR Gc ...°3_ � �n
0 Mm 0m f°.p w
xmac7opmnE�SO °'w°7 nw0�O7p °oaa Cnvn xo7m°a =Owcaa�a.��nm �pp�mB
np W nnm 7_ -mi O y Dp0 =�.x •'w O� nj!<w.n^., mSE no rnppTpC a—. Mp, -+ ^n G'o r
m° -N=-mp oa f, no0a _ W S='0p
m70 p"B Sp w _nn W p�.x Spop p n7.'raw S 90��. - ^- a.w --mnm
WwJ p pip o= p W Yy o u
.=o n m a W m n° o i° n C a 0 O p O 6 C t�p O o? n a° v Fp+ pop o p tao
9 n 0_ m n m O t n
�o7 ° Vo °ns i
-:K m `<S�O �° O ao doter O� O O C y m U ^p °O G'T.. '3 6p B SO oa �,. W f°-ry
7 =Y E97�'T w� ° �' 'O ° .'-�
N oQ =.n 7 -w a
W ° m'bnn- nio77Q ^» �ipo� 7s 7 =. cna =-.. B C G6G:W
p< ➢ Y V ° n a ry ' Y r n 7 v n 6 Fp' r7°o o ip mm 6 � w . ro C= nE ^ Y S C3 lnn , -
J D m0 : O 0 O n° °- ..o IV
a. m n agy O ' r m G° -• p w a
`c w G
00 c no w
N
N
O
N
N
r
11 °•<�y�l°n °OYOmp --. _.�7 o.w °.. ��=0 �a °^O- _ ^S<wW -cw O y 00 aE.'^. -a n C Om 0aa1 ^3 _+
wmy a rvc OwnNSan,EC3ttl ,°awN"ar, e'w- ..•`�Eia= n VNn CO'7n Saacmn.. -. j...- <o�a9aw•°o� °may v
00� =� m >N Ha�?SW.m�7ao °o o.�- a °o�YWr�.
° n3o0" o. o. m7o . -- .o`m7 °iamoa d °a��ro.N3�, °�' °Nzo- .P'a33Q3
t7DE'00Nw7 >�wm or.Oy =oN° =w _n •.'n�ov _n n Soo3'o° >��573'p.�3��
< mO^< om�a�� E9��.wx�'o��73mc °o3 °°a�. �mvS �'co3��acw3Da+E�oO- �,3 ='�0
`m'Da3'no °-'�oNwoa�7 weN�'o�E3ac "ao.7 -`<=i'
00 7.�a1 mwC °N�"aQEDy a07. N w cno�7N °
7° 7 3 W 5 n = 5 0 0 7 0 ° C 7 7 m E` m o ?. n o m O n O w H'� ° n° a a_ 7 Y 9 N r>-- a o n Y 7
o aw w 7w �a�- -- .-�
no.m amo o7.- ?"P'ywE 'yar3a n.°-.7 <'- '°oa'w`n" v ym�° no�n.o ° °ac.o ��D73
nxwS a7 E�av ``-'o P1 n�'7c�7 �' °�3v °.S n Naw.= N .,NE-+an c, aoo -° o•°i o[�1w
°�•;3w_7 Vtif0 G1Rw7 S�.m V!N c= NO.< -m ., < S3° W 3.535 `-oy oCn7
o�m V °cc&C+Lvi -m, �.mW yS7m o'lN a .° =_ion w" oni-, Cu;� Imo °'•.wv° w woS.- mio �' m
m ati�<`<Dn < °.+ww7..�C O o-'3., raC w ° Oti'�° 7wa -n w'7^�`<In aE .. �.
°•m fDaww�3 =.o :°_= mw'�a °�cD 7�ww ° 9O- "v ° -.w °•'' w >a'm �O
o
< m
n I
.- '< 'G in N '< � - 7 N a s a N N to a a0 - m'G lD 7 :' n �• S a
-0
S•,H c Somw < °m
w g
m
C -1 67 wy�_A
a7 D`<3w3xm A o
O
W O � 3 .n n7•+o
ON DIES' 6nn m,
N A
n 3n.,on�3
o
�wp3E
N a'
wo Scan
D 7 t3C 7 S_ o C
F° y <y0
t0 cc« aa� c
n
O N
HNa��
v Y
�Na�p
u °NON
qN�n�
N a
;a�3w
a m •Y- v.
�rnn <n< a=ow,��„ °��°c =off =.
❑OO'�
o vai O °^ p n
p a m p a ,
Sn °`-9 -� On° `m C6D^w w m 37P,rnnS E ��:
.n �' -7.-�m Q ° °m�
Y D C c d 7 C S 3 `n 0 0 (^� n n 0 w 0 0 a
wn0 o- o- -m of =,�,�
o n¢ C 9 y. O 6 A aT. a� 17° O O �•' o
0
N N Oa w.6m
an
E3w
5.=0 F'33 w woN3033 w � -> 0" 0'm . aE-D =�l DWz� 0 <nm7 7 w . o T . ° �A��_�
Q°�w ^ I- w O ^ m
C am
0 I
05� 7 0oD7i'�ocA ,w�crtClm�c7 "m' �.��a �r °.c,m 1NnN w 37aan^+mo7ryD> _ yn
,n mA�33wmE�7- 3°j?.,3n <zo >N,y ° -ci�f0 SO >D"pwEa'�.°�°m ° °°:w��
,Cae+ "9UW�,�mSm�.D.SpRO(^ ,m'e "Oa ". H 0moo�0'3�.ow�ay.a3n�arw o m
0-.1 wi'm 7n3 am=PmmSO Sw �� •°�,O 7.m�mD >7 M_3ma��y ^ p A
n7DO a7�w� �� ^ °c_E wm. °N W oo 'ia0'3�7?a n aoo •' S c
0'3 0_ a_.w a Gm wo w.w N. 70 <7 Ww E cN 7 a m _
7nUl�E .E
on W mm.m-o mD m7'r a -y :o ff j obwmo�nw o.,D ��. c;w`<7 ^°O•wN w m u
o ni�em+'Om ?U .3mas°,�, ° °7 °eW+A7 �3On 9 mOn y,�_. a Gw� w°O��''+Sw a`tia°jw mtmp = 3
ncm- °'W°S3mma'`' �.yo 7770 a73 ,w °fw .. ��' aw -fn 'a wOav �i 0� Q ym
oN ='o wm E m ° mao.in p c w >mm �°._'+m1 °wc,m. ..a °w 7
O n c..� w S �. E m a _. o '�' ra. Omp w 3 a a m V7i o R m~m a O ill �^ n m S 'y m A Oa A '• S n w '-''. n w
DDa+w Om w W w3S wn0 p'7..,o n�` -_.� tO3 y. c Na R]Qy a" ,.7D w_mr . m o
owow� o`�ow =.m ?°. �o0ma a?� - Y =yan000 = `°0007 omn o W
Da0 < -.S_mm D ° D n7 a =. nom' n 3O Fa °N = °O`+ many °•o°00"
wac °io °mw `002.a
m m?.- .wnm'm °o wEawa. °c3 «m
`�7,<30 ?3osm �w7 Nowt v. _.n 'm m •.�°: am o =mama vwm3mocc
o -O .. C'C .. =.a =p ❑O N7 G 0 N'3DO<O m C nm'aa �Omn NCOODW6 N+
0 7 c_00 PO,., e,
=o aQ_._N�?n7aoowo� -0 p ° 7�a3�cwncH o �°�� Q o,�'�+JJ- :rac0 Nm,,,,_.,DO
O. °'7..nyb 7o�da`•+°9 b9�H C N NN wCDpN
!D 3:0 m.Z)e�� mc�07y't7n3Pn`O•W
ooa .,n'tNS o :r .,o nD m �a -° ��- :.y c, ;;o v9m
O�n. �.o 7r7C °rnnw7.�3t7C O.�m� viW7�nDO�a9v MEG aNy� omm}amn Smtmipm7��
3. ov oo Ac n r.,-, 3 0 ° T . N mna, n .,
wN3 7� .,S °_n�wowvo n m' ° °On'0o'o om A N > map <'o.-_m°rna M,o.o 3..,
0o �ww_0� °v�c.D >a a3��naa o 0 0 ° to a�� wwn °o .°= cwcma�w°_'. o
n `•; >>. .,7 anma ° « -N
7NOw.- ESS•G7 i _6 d °m07 T Ty° u.-_ 0'�°>,9 y ^9 'G
NA Ago
7noc� n_.- �7SC7mo q mNS_7_. y oa a3 -._N m 3N
o <Swn��� -e_w3 >> aa ��a 7f y.,NCw7��'Ene
am (°p t=a D =m �• 0 7 '. < ;� 6 W a 3 O. a v D m? C u? `'9 O �' 7 m a° y 6 3
-'<°
c m_o 'maw .y_o 3n'. Nm� °_�°_a�a�' c a a °Y w0aocm`DKDa°OW
°w .mC_N3 7n m°-.O mdwDm '^ Cm lin? 7Oo0a wQCC O a
<man n3 s =7 ° =vn7 0 77ann -.,_. �o.o °W nc nn_3Dyn
3a�a0a`ac c3 3 o m - , o 3 _°° �-. 'aa , n ° 7 n a 0 m w c
A
A
n
T
A
n
T
0
m
P
a
0
T
m
a
m
0
3
m
m
m
3
°
tl
m
0
3
m
0
r�
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE
OF APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL
(Pursuant to Section 6- 205.E. of the Land Use Regulations)
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The undersigned, being first duly sworn, deposes and
says as follows:
I, SUNNY VANN, being or representing an Applicant
before the City of Aspen, personally certify that Public Notice
of the application for the Volk Lot Split was given by 1) posting
of notice containing the information required in Section 6-
205.E.2., which posting occurred on May 19, 1989, in a conspic-
uous place on the subject property and that the said sign was
posted and visible continuously from that date, and 2) mailing
Notice of said development application to all property owners
within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property, which
mailing occurred on May 19, 1989.
Applicant:
By
The foregoing Affidavit of Public Notice was acknowl-
edged and signed before me this ;,_ ""day of May, 1989, by Sunny
Vann on behalf of RICHARD W. VOLK.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: - 2 r
Notary Public
May 31, 1989
Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
230 East Hopkins
Aspen, Colorado
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920 -5090
81611
RE: Volk Lot Split Consolidated Final
Exemption /Stream Margin
Dear Sunny,
PUD /GMQS
We have scheduled this application for review by the City Council
at a public hearing on Monday, June 26, 1989 at a meeting to
begin at 5:00 p.m. The Friday before the meeting date, we will
call to inform you that a copy of the memo pertaining to your
application is available at the Planning Office.
Pursuant to the regulations regarding consolidated PUD process,
this is a public hearing which requires the usual notice
procedures.
If you have any questions, please call Leslie Lamont.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
,,,,,, -I
ASPEN /PITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 920 -5090
March 20, 1989
Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
P. O. Box 8485
Aspen, Colorado 81612
RE: Volk Lot split Conceptual PUD /GMQS Exemption /Stream
Margin Review
Dear Sunny,
This is to inform you that the Planning Office has completed its
preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that your application IS complete. 14
We have scheduled your application for review Jby the Aspen
Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, May 2, 1989 at a
meeting to begin at 4:30 P.M. The Friday befote the meeting
date, we will call to inform you that a copy of the memo
pertaining to your application is available at the Planning
Office.
Alan has told me that if the Code Amendment regarding
consolidation of Conceptual and Final Plat for PUD is adopted in
time, this application will be reviewed in that manner. If this
happens, then the P &Z meeting will be a public hearing and you
will need to post a sign on the property and mail notices to
adjacent property owners. I will mail you a copu of the Public
Notice in time for you to do that.
Leslie Lamont is the planner assigned to your case, however, she
hasn't started work yet so if you have any questions at this
time, please call Alan.
Sincerely,
Debbie Skehan
Administrative Assistant
TO: City Attorney
City Engineer
Aspen Water Department
Environmental Health
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District
FROM: Leslie Lamont, Planning Office
RE: Volk Lot Split Conceptual PUD /GMQS Exemption /Stream
Margin Review
Parcel ID# 2737- 073 -09 -002 & 2737 - 073 -10 -004
DATE: March 20, 1989
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted
by Sunny Vann on behalf of his client, Richard Volk, requesting
Conceptual PUD approval of the Volk Lot Split.
Please review this material and return your comments to me no
later than April 19, 1989 so that I may prepare a memo for the
P &Z.
Thank you.
r
i
r
-
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
i
i
i
VOLK LOT SPLIT
r CONCEPTUAL PUD /SUBDIVISION
EXEMPTION APPLICATION
r
i
r
w
w
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
March 10, 1989
ME
Ms. Cindy Houben
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Volk Lot Split /Conceptual PUD /Subdivision Exemption
Application
Dear Cindy:
Attached for the Planning office's review are twenty -one
(21) copies of the referenced application and a check in
the amount of $2,830.00 for payment of the application
fee. Please note that, in addition to the basic applica-
tion fee, the check also provides for the application's
anticipated referral costs.
Should you have any questions regarding the application,
or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not
hesitate to call. On behalf of Vann Associates and the
Applicant, thank you for your assistance in the preparat-
ion of the application.
Very truly you�rs,��
VANN ASIOC ATSI S, INC.
Sunny Vann
President
SV:cwv
Attachment
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Asoen. Coioraoo 81611 •303; 925 -6958
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
AN APPLICATION FOR
CONCEPTUAL PUD /SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION
FOR THE
VOLR LOT SPLIT
Submitted by
Richard W. Volk
5847 San Felipe, Suite 3600
Houston, Texas 77057
(713) 780 -5348
Prepared by
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
210 South Galena Street, Suite 24
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -6958
and
THE STEVENS GROUP, INC.
450 South Galena Street, Suite 202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(303) 925 -3021
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. PROJECT SITE 3
III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6
IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS 9
A. Subdivision 10
B. Planned Unit Development 19
C. Growth Management Exemption 23
D. Stream Margin Review 23
APPENDIX
A. Exhibit 1,
Form
Exhibit 2,
Exhibit 3,
Exhibit 4,
B. Exhibit 1,
C. Exhibit 1,
Flood
Land Use Application
Special Warranty Deed
Trust Affidavit
Permission to Represent
Property Survey
Schmueser Gordon Meyer
Plain Analysis
i
I. INTRODUCTION
The following application requests approval to sub-
divide an approximately one and one -half (1.5) acre parcel
of land located in the Oklahoma Flats area of the City of
Aspen into two (2) lots via the so- called "lot split"
provision of the City's Land Use Regulations. The appli-
cation also requests a growth management exemption to
permit the construction of a single - family residence on
each of the lots, stream margin review, and approval of
the proposed project's conceptual PUD development plan
(see Land Use Application Form, Exhibit 1, Appendix A).
As the Vicinity Map on the following page illustrat-
es, the property is located adjacent to the intersection
of Spring Street and Bay Street in the general vicinity of
the Aspen Art Museum and the Roaring Fork River. The
owner of the property and project applicant is Richard W.
Volk, Trustee UTA dated March 10, 1984 (see Special War-
ranty Deed, Exhibit 2, Appendix A). Authorization for Mr.
Volk to act on behalf of the Trust is attached hereto as
Exhibit 3, Appendix A. The Applicant's representative is
Sunny Vann of Vann Associates, Inc., Planning Consultants
(see Permission to Represent, Exhibit 4, Appendix A).
The application has been divided into three (3)
parts. The first part, or Section II. of the application,
r
w.
11
Vicinity Map
Project Site
provides a brief description of the project site, while
Section III. describes the Applicant's proposed develop-
ment. The third part, or Section IV., addresses the pro -
posed development's compliance with the applicable
review requirements of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.
For the reviewer's convenience, all pertinent supporting
documents relating to the project (e.g., proof of owner-
~ ship, flood plain analysis, etc.) are provided in the
various appendices to the application.
While the Applicant has attempted to address all
relevant provisions of the Land Use Regulations, and to
provide sufficient information to enable a thorough evalu-
ation of the application, questions may arise which result
in the staff's request for further information and /or
clarification. The Applicant would be pleased to provide
such additional information as may be required in the
course of the application's review.
II. PROJECT SITE
The project site consists of Lots 1 through 8 and 11
w.
through 20, Block 3, of the Oklahoma Flats Addition to the
original Aspen Townsite (see Property Survey, Exhibit 1,
Appendix B). The lots, however, are in single ownership,
and are deemed to have merged pursuant to Section 7- 1004.-
° A.S. of the Regulations. The property contains 1.57
3
acres, or approximately sixty -eight thousand three hundred
and ninety (68,390) square feet of land area, and is zoned
R -30, Low - Density Residential, Mandatory Planned Unit
Development.
As the Existing Conditions map on the following page
illustrates, the topography of the site can be generally
y characterized as two (2) flat benches with an area of
steeply sloping hillside located in the northeast corner
of the property. The property is essentially devoid of
vegetation with the exception of several small evergreens
and numerous mature cottonwoods, the majority of which are
located on the fringes of the site. Man -made improvements
are limited to an existing single - family residence and a
small out - building, neither of which has received any
historical designation which would preclude demolition.
While the structures are located more than two hun-
dred (200) feet from the River, a significant portion of
the property is designated as lying within the one hundred
M (100) year flood plain. It should also be noted that por-
tions of Bay Street presently encroach upon the property.
Existing utility service to the property includes water,
sewer, natural gas, electric, and telephone. A six (6)
inch water main and a twelve (12) inch sanitary sewer are
i
located in both Spring Street and Bay Street. Fire hy-
drant number 971 is located near the property's southeast
4
corner. Two (2) additional fire hydrants are conveniently
" located at opposite ends of Spring Street.
- III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The Applicant proposes to subdivide the project site
into two (2) single - family lots. As currently envisioned,
basic site improvements (e.g., access, utility extensions,
.. etc.) will be completed by the Applicant, and the lots
offered for sale to individual purchasers who will design,
construct and landscape their own residences. Pursuant to
�- the provisions of Ordinance No. 47 -89, the Applicant will
covenant the property so as to require the purchasers of
�. the lots to include a mandatory "Accessory Dwelling Unit"
within, or attached to, their residence. The size of the
unit (i.e., square footage /bedrooms) will be left to the
discretion of the individual lot purchaser. The cove-
nants, however, will require that any such unit comply
" with the applicable standards of Section 5- 510.A.
w As the Site Development Plan on the following page
illustrates, the proposed lots are roughly equal in size
W and are designed to be accessed from a single point on
.. Spring Street. A thirty (30) foot driveway easement will
be granted across Lot 1 to provide access to Lot 2. The
^- decision to access the proposed subdivision from Spring
Street will reduce traffic on Bay Street, an essentially
11
C
W
r
a
r
dead end driveway, and have significantly less traffic
impact on surrounding property owners. The proposed
access design also concentrates vehicular traffic to the
rear of the building envelopes thereby reducing potential
visual impacts and increasing the project's open space.
The proposed lots and building envelopes have been
designed in compliance with the dimensional requirements
of the R -30 zone district and the subdivision design
standards of Section 7- 1004.C.4. of the Land Use Regula-
tions. As Table 1 below indicates, the proposed lots
exceed the minimum lot area per dwelling unit requirements
of the Regulations. In addition, the individual building
envelopes meet or exceed all applicable setback require-
ments. While their is no requirement for the provision of
open space in the R -30 zone, it should be noted that
approximately forty -one thousand nine hundred and ninety
(41,990) square feet of land area, or sixty -one (61)
percent of the project site will remain undeveloped.
Table 1
DEVELOPMENT DATA
1. Existing Zoning I R -30, PUD
2. Total Site Area (Sq. Ft.)
3. Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 30,000
4. Minimum Required Lot Area /Dwelling
Unit (Sq. Ft.)
E
r
r
w.
r
w
r
•
As shown on the proposed Site Development Plan,
existing utilities will be extended from Spring Street to
serve the two lots. All required utility extensions will
be located underground and will conform to the applicable
extension policies of the individual utility companies.
Easements to accommodate the proposed utility extensions
will be provided as may be required and will be depicted
on the final subdivision plat.
IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
The
Single - Family
30,000
both subdivi-
Duplex
15,000
5.
Proposed Lot Area (Sq. Ft.)
Lot 1
31,680
Lot 2
36,710
6.
Maximum Allowed Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) 2
Lot 1
5,500
Lot 2
5,800
7.
Proposed Site Coverage (Sq. Ft.)
Building Envelopes
20,550
Access /Utility Easement
5,850
Undeveloped
41,990
1
All measurements of land area have been
rounded to
the nearest ten (10) square feet.
2
All floor areas based on single - family structures.
As shown on the proposed Site Development Plan,
existing utilities will be extended from Spring Street to
serve the two lots. All required utility extensions will
be located underground and will conform to the applicable
extension policies of the individual utility companies.
Easements to accommodate the proposed utility extensions
will be provided as may be required and will be depicted
on the final subdivision plat.
IV. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS
The
proposed
development is subject to
both subdivi-
sion and
planned
unit development review.
An exemption
9
x
from growth management and stream margin review are also
required. Each of these review requirements is discussed
r
below.
A
A. Subdivision
Pursuant to Section 3 -101 of the Land Use Regu-
lations, the division of land into two (2) or more lots,
r
tracts or parcels is by definition a subdivision. Conse-
quently, the proposed division of the Applicant's property
into two (2) separate single - family lots is subject to the
-�
City's review and approval. Such divisions, however, may
be exempted from full subdivision review pursuant to
Section 7- 1003.A.2. of the Regulations. The specific
review criteria for a "lot- split" exemption, and the
proposed development's compliance therewith, are summa -
rized as follows.
+N
1. "The land is not located in a subdivision
approved by either the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners or the City Council, or the land is descri-
bed as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdi-
vided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the
City of Aspen on March 24, 1969."
As the attached Special Warranty Deed (Exhibit
2, Appendix A) indicates, the project site consists of
Lots 1 through 8 and 11 through 20, Block 3, of the Okla-
d.
10
r
homa Flats Addition to the original Aspen Townsite. The
site is not located within a previously approved subdivi-
sion and the lots obviously predate the City's adoption of
subdivision regulations.
2. "No more than two (2) lots are created by
r
the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of
,. the underlying zone district and the applicant commits
that any lot for which development is proposed will con -
.. tain an Accessory Dwelling Unit. When there is demolition
on the property which make it subject to the provisions of
Article 5, Division 7, Replacement Housing Program, the
standards of that program shall supersede these require-
-- ments."
As the Site Development Plan illustrates, only
two (2) lots are proposed. The lots comply with all
applicable dimensional requirements of the underlying R -30
zone district and will be covenanted to ensure that subse-
quent purchasers provide an accessory dwelling unit in
conjunction with the construction of their respective
-. residences. The City's accessory dwelling unit require-
ment will be incorporated in the Applicant's subdivision
y agreement and depicted on the final subdivision plat. As
no demolition of existing multi - family structures or
aggregation of separate parcels for development purposes
will occur as a result of the Applicant's development
,� 11
W
" proposal, the provisions of Article 5, Division 7, are not
" applicable.
3. "The lot under consideration, or any part
thereof, was not previously the subject of an exemption
under the provisions of this article or a lot split exemp-
tion pursuant to Section 8- 104.C.1.a."
r
To the best of the Applicant's knowledge, the
property has not been the subject of any prior subdivision
exemption application or approval.
corded a
sion may
units be
pursuant
pursuant
4. "A subdivision plat is submitted and re-
Eter approval, indicating that no further subdivi-
be granted for these lots nor will additional
built without receipt of applicable approvals
to this Article and growth management allocation
to Article 8."
VA final PUD development plan and subdivision
plat will be recorded upon approval of the proposed devel-
opment and completion of the review process. The plat
will include a prohibition against further subdivision and
- a requirement that additional development comply with the
applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations.
As noted previously, a lot -split is by defini-
tion a subdivision. As such, the proposed development
12
y.
must comply with the basic review standards for a develop-
ment application for plat, as set forth in Section 7-
1004.C. of the Land Use Regulations. These standards, and
the proposed development's compliance therewith, are
summarized as follows.
1. "The proposed subdivision shall be consis-
tent with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan."
The 1973 Aspen Land Use Plan indicates that the
project site is located within the so- called "Single-
Family Residential" land use category. As noted previous-
ly, the project site is zoned R -30, Low - Density Residen-
tial. The proposed single - family lots are a permitted use
in this zone district, and the residences to be con-
structed thereon are consistent with the Land Use Plan's
Single- Family residential designation.
It should be noted that the Land Use Plan de-
picts proposed trail alignments along both Spring Street
and Bay Street. These alignments, however, have been
superseded, we believe, by the so- called Rio Grande /Herron
Park trails system. To the best of the Applicant's knowl-
edge, no other trail alignments are proposed in the Parks-
/Recreation/Open Space /Trails element of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan which affect the project site. Simi-
larly, no other element of the Plan contains recommenda-
a
r
13
tions which preclude, or otherwise pertain to, the pro-
" posed development.
2. "The proposed subdivision shall be consis-
tent with the character of existing land uses in the area.
The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas."
The proposed development is consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the surrounding area,
and will have no adverse effect on the area's future
development. The surrounding site area consists primarily
of mixed residential development, including older single -
family residences, newer duplexes, and various nonconform-
ing structures which are used for multi - family purposes.
With the exception of the project site and several smaller
parcels located adjacent to the River, the area is essen-
tially developed.
3. "The proposed subdivision shall be in
m compliance with all applicable requirements of the Land
Use Regulations."
The proposed development has been designed to
' comply with the applicable requirements of the underlying
R -30 zone district and all relevant subdivision, PUD and
r
stream margin provisions of the Aspen Land Use Regula-
tions.
r
r
14
4. "The proposed subdivision shall not be
located on land unsuitable for development because of
flooding, drainage, rock or soil creep, mudflow, rock-
r
slide, avalanche or snowslide, steep topography or any
other natural hazard or other condition that will be
+ harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the residents
in the proposed subdivision."
r
.. As noted previously, a portion of the project
site is located within the one hundred (100) year flood
plain. The impact of flooding on the proposed development
has been analyzed by Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., Con-
r
sulting Engineers, who have concluded that the property
can be developed in compliance with Section 7- 504.C.1. of
the Regulations (see Exhibit 1, Appendix C and Section
" IV.D., Stream Margin Review, of this application). No
other natural hazard adversely affects the development
potential of the property.
designed
,. cies, dui
ties and
5. "The proposed subdivision shall not be
to create spatial patterns that cause inefficien-
tlication or premature extension of public facili-
unnecessary public costs."
No governmental inefficiencies, duplication of
facilities, or unnecessary public costs will occur as a
result of the provision of public services to the proposed
r
r
15
M
AN
Y
1
.+ development. All required utilities are currently avail-
able in the immediate site area. All costs for the exten-
sion of utilities to serve the project will be borne by
r,
the Applicant.
r
r
r
w
r
In addition to requiring compliance with the
preceding review criteria, the Land Use Regulations also
require that various improvements be provided in connec-
tion with the proposed subdivision, and that specific
standards be adhered to in the subdivision's design. The
improvements and design standards which pertain to the
Applicant's proposed development are summarized as fol-
lows.
1. Water. Water service to the proposed
development will be provided via the six (6) inch main
located in Spring Street. As the Site Development Plan
illustrates, a common service line will be extended within
the driveway easement to serve the
shut -off valves will be provided for
specific water system design will
staff of the City's Water Department
mation submitted in conjunction with
PUD development plan application as r
two lots. Separate
each residence. The
be reviewed with the
and additional infor-
the Applicant's final
nay be required.
2. Sewer. As the Site Development Plan illus-
trates, the proposed development's sewage will be piped
16
r
r
s
s
s
1
via a collection line(s) to the twelve (12) inch sanitary
sewer located in Spring Street. Cleanouts will be in-
stalled along the length of the collection line as may be
required.
3. Electric, Telephone and Natural Gas.
Electrical, telephone, and natural gas service is located
within the Spring Street right -of -way and will be extended
to serve the project as necessary. All required exten-
sions of these utilities will be located underground, and
will conform to the applicable extension policies of the
individual utility companies.
4. Easements. An easement to accommodate the
proposed access driveway and utility extensions will be
provided as depicted on the Site Development Plan. The
easement complies with the requirements of Section 7-
1004.C.4.b. of the Land Use Regulations and will be de-
picted and described on the final subdivision plat. As
noted previously, Bay Street presently encroaches onto the
project site. The Applicant, however, will grant an
appropriate easement to accommodate the encroachment, a
description of which will be provided in connection with
the final PUD development plan application.
5. Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter. No sidewalks,
curbs or gutters presently exist within the immediate site
17
y
Drainage.
The proposed development's
storm
..
area, nor
is the property
located within a mapped sidewalk
"
improvement district. The
Applicant, however, will cove-
r
nant the
property so as
to require that subsequent pur-
chasers of
the lots join
an improvement district in the
r
event one
is formed, and
to pay their pro rata share of
+
the costs
of any future
sidewalk, curb and gutter con -
struction.
6. Fire Protection. Fire protection for the
"W proposed development will be provided by the Aspen Volun-
teer Fire Department. The project site is located approx-
imately three fourths (3/4) of a mile from the fire sta-
tion, resulting in a response time of approximately three
(3) to five (5) minutes. The proposed lots are readily
accessible to fire protection vehicles and an existing
fire hydrant is located adjacent to Bay Street at the
southeast corner of the property. Two (2) additional
hydrants are located at opposite ends of Spring Street and
provide convenient backup in the event of an emergency.
7.
Drainage.
The proposed development's
storm
drainage system
will be
designed to maintain historic
flow
rates with respect to surface water runoff and groundwater
recharge. On -site drywells and /or surface detention
facilities will be utilized to intercept and detain runoff
a
from building roofs and impervious areas, and to control
a the rate of groundwater recharge. A detailed stormwater
w
a
BE
drainage plan will be submitted in conjunction with the
Applicants' final PUD development plan application.
B. Planned Unit Development
The project site is zoned R -30, mandatory PUD.
As a result, the proposed subdivision is also subject to
review as a planned unit development. It should be noted,
however, that new regulations are pending which will
provide an expedited PUD review process that can be uti-
lized for projects with limited issues or impacts. The
Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended a two (2)
step process in Resolution No. 89 -3, and the City Council
appears to support the proposal. In the event the Council
approves the new process prior to the P &Z's conceptual PUD
review of this application, we respectfully request that
the Applicant be allowed to complete the PUD process
pursuant to the terms of the new regulations.
Procedurally, the proposed two step process is
identical to the City's existing final PUD development
plan process. Should it be available for purposes of this
application, the P &Z would consider the Applicant's pro -
ti posed PUD development plan at a public hearing. Related
stream margin review issues would also be considered at
this time. The City Council would subsequently hold a
public hearing to consider the Applicant's request for a
r
19
lot split exemption and the P &Z's recommendations regard-
" ing the PUD development plan. This public hearing would
µ also be used to "vest" the Applicant's rights pursuant to
w the vested rights provision of the Regulations. In the
event that this process, or a modified version thereof,
can be used to review the proposed development, additional
information (e.g., final PUD submission requirements) will
be submitted as may be required.
r
r
While the mandatory PUD designation was most
likely applied to the Applicant's property because of its
proximity to the Roaring Fork River, the size and configu-
ration of the site provides little opportunity for the
incorporation of typical PUD design approaches. In fact,
no variations in the dimensional requirements of the
underlying R -30 zone district have been incorporated in
the Site Development Plan. The proposed development,
however, is consistent with the basic purpose and review
standards of the City's PUD regulations. The general
requirements of Planned Unit Development approval are
identical to those of the subdivision regulations and have
been addressed in Section IV.A. of this application.
With respect to density, the proposed develop-
ment complies with the requirements of the underlying R -30
zone district. As the Slope Reduction map on the follow-
ing page illustrates, approximately sixty -two thousand
20
eight hundred and ten (62,810) square feet of land area
remains after reduction for steep slopes. Based on the R-
,�µ
30 zone district's minimum lot area requirement of thirty
thousand (30,000) square feet per single - family dwelling
unit, a maximum of two (2) single - family residences can be
constructed on the property.
.. As discussed previously, the project site is
suitable for development and can easily accommodate the
proposed density. Existing roads and utilities are ade-
quate to serve the proposed development, and no adverse
impacts upon the area's air or water quality are antici-
pated. The proposed Site Development Plan is compatible
with the site's topography and minimal regrading will be
required. The majority of the site's existing vegetation
will be retained and additional landscaping will undoubt-
edly be provided by subsequent purchasers to enhance
privacy and to improve the visual appearance of their
residences.
It should be noted that no central open space is
either required or provided by the Applicant's proposed
development. The proposed lots are large enough, and the
r
building envelopes sufficiently restricted, to provide for
adequate open space for the both the project residents and
the general public. As discussed previously, sixty -one
(61) percent of the property will remain undeveloped.
22
C. Growth Management Exemption
r Pursuant to Section 8- 104.C.1.a. of the Land Use
Regulations, the development of one (1) detached residen-
tial dwelling on a vacant lot formed by a lot -split ap-
proved subsequent to November 14, 1977 is exempt from the
r
City's growth management regulations subject to the ap-
proval of the City Council. Inasmuch as there are no
specific review requirements for such an exemption, the
City Council's final approval of the Applicant's lot -split
application should be sufficient to convey upon the pro-
posed development the required development rights.
D. Stream Margin Review
w Applications for development in an environmen-
tally sensitive area (i.e., Stream Margin Review applica-
tions) are considered by the Planning and Zoning Commis-
sion concurrent with their review of final PUD development
plan applications. However, as it is possible that the
City Council may adopt expedited review procedures for PUD
applications of limited impact prior to the review of the
- Applicant's conceptual PUD development plan, we have
addressed the stream margin review criteria of the Regula-
tions in conjunction with our conceptual PUD application
• so as not to preclude the ability to take advantage of the
new process.
r
23
r
M
as
r Pursuant to Section 7 -504 of the Land Use Regu-
lations, all development within a "Special Flood Hazard
r Area" (i.e., the one hundred (100) year flood plain) is
subject to stream margin review. Given the fact that the
one hundred (100) year flood plain boundary traverses a
portion of the project site, review and approval pursuant
to the City's stream margin regulations is required. The
specific review criteria, and the proposed development's
compliance therewith, are summarized as follows.
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 pro-
posed for development."
Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. has analyzed the
impact of the proposed development on the one hundred
(100) flood plain and has determined that no increase in
the base flood elevation on the property will occur as a
result of the Applicant's project (see Flood Plain Analy-
sis, Exhibit 1, Appendix C).
2. "Any trail on the parcel designated on the
- Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open
Space /Trails plan map is dedicated for public use."
As discussed previously, no trail alignments are
proposed in the Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails element
24
of the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan which affect the
project site.
3. "The recommendations of the Roaring Fork
Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for
development to the greatest extent practicable."
The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan contains no site
specific recommendations with respect to the project site.
The proposed building envelopes, however, have been lo-
cated so as to preserve to the maximum extent feasible the
existing vegetation and natural appearance of the proper -
ty. The residence to be constructed on Lot 1 will be
located more than two hundred (200) feet from the River,
and both lots are outside the open space corridor depicted
on the Aspen Land Use Plan.
4. "No vegetation is removed or slope grade
changes made that produce erosion and sedimentation of the
stream bank."
No vegetation will be removed nor any slope
regraded such that the River would be adversely affected.
As noted above, the property is located well beyond the
stream bank.
„ 5. "To the greatest extent practicable, the
proposed development reduces pollution and interference
r
" 25
a
..
a
.r with the natural changes of the river, stream or other
tributary."
a
Inasmuch as the building envelopes are located
well beyond the high water line, the proposed development
will have no effect upon the natural changes experienced
by the Roaring Fork River. No pollution of the River will
occur as a result of the Applicant's proposed development.
6. "Written notice is given to the Colorado
,r
Water Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relo-
cation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is
submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency."
No alteration or relocation of the existing
water course will be required.
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."
Inasmuch as no alteration or relocation of the
water course is proposed, no such guarantee is required.
8. "Copies are provided of all necessary
federal and state permits relating to work within the one
A hundred (100) year floodplain."
26
No federal or state permits are required to
construct the proposed development.
With respect to the submission requirements of
Section 7- 507.C.2. of the Regulations, please note that
the one hundred (100) year flood plain boundary and site
topography is depicted on the Existing Conditions map.
T Elevation certificates for the proposed lots are contained
in Schmueser Gordon Meyer's flood plain analysis (see
.— Exhibit 1, Appendix C). The lots will be covenanted to
ensure that the lowest floor of all structures are located
a minimum of two (2) feet above the base flood elevation,
and that foundations are engineered to prevent flotation,
collapse or lateral movement. Compliance with these
requirements will be determined in connection with the
issuance of individual building permits.
r
27
r
a
r
APPENDIX A
CITY OF ASPEN EXHIBIT
PRE- APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
I
,.. PROJECT J�= y'
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:
I
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE:
OWNER'S NAME:
zo it 1 I'' �1' ? " ~ V ' SUMMARY
i + ro
1. Type of Application:
I
2. Describe action /type of development being requested:
1 l�"t
-
3.
Areas is which Applicant has been requested to
respond,
types of reports requested:
Policy Area/
"
Referral Agent Comments
ell
4.
Review is: (P &Z Only) (CC Only) (P &_ Z_then to
CC)
5.
Public Hearing: (YES) (NO)
6.
Did you tell applicant to submit list of ADSAeE - PROPERTY
OWNERS? (YES (NO) Disclosure of Ownership: (YES)
(NO)
7.
What fee was applicant requested to submit !a'700 t SD ! Sn = r an
A-
v
8.
Anticipated date of submission: N
9.
COMMEN/TS /UNIQUE CONCE RNS:
Pc
fAv �
1
frm.pre_app
w
w
,.r
,
RrrrtdcJ n n dnl _ _ nl . I da F Q
.:--- _- _____:-- __- _- --- - -- -- -- - -- p qq EXHIBIT 2
SPECIAL N g ARRANTY DEED 1 2% 5 7 G
M as of the 10th
M THIS DEED, Mbar *K aa• "1 March . w 84
7 brlw«n Richard W. Volk, Russell D. Volk, Casa A. Metzler,)
and Denice C. Reich LORE (TA BANNER.
PITKIN CTY. RECORDER
( \( \``���� "lax City and
o w C "unr. nl Denver . smx Ill cuhxrfu........r gnu I IDH 9 1107 A9 R86
LL �• Richard W• Volk, Trustee UTA dated March 30, 1984 d
r`
Qp-• whnss kR9 dJrt »ia 217 North Water Street, P.O. Box 1201
°1 Cr—. Wichita, Kansas 67201
x,, X= X= xx=xxg•KiIK"Xxx=xxxxxxxxxmxsxxxmYK run.,%- I,
i
I. and other good
i, N•ITNMETII. Thm lhr Fralnm>r lm and m nmvd ... I"n "f the wm nl Tan Dollars ($ID.DD) x]ORa�
and valuable considerations
1' Ih rte, M anO wnc�rtnc)nl •'hicAUhertM1F achm+•IrJFrd.lu Ve FrunxJ. M1arFauxJ. N•W aMnm•nrd. mdM1\Ihrss fvrxma do FrNI' II
his sucee5 SOiiW ae Inmrr. all the rtal pnryxryJnreher NilA inllam<mE'm >.
Wrpm. sell. c"nm arW cnnfiml. umn Ih< FranlerlX.
. it any.xmwRlRlmmO�lmmO�mK XxKa))nI I
it dessdbcdubllwa:
.. See Exhibit A attached hereto and glade a part hereof by this reference. i
I�It being the express intention of the parties that this instrument
li convey all real property interests transferred to grantors hereunder
%1n under and by virtue of that certain Special Warranty Deed recorded in
li Book510Z at page 363 of the Pitkin County real property records.
ar
DOCUMENTARY
.AJN 91986
LD'
I,
-. � ; )aEllimmExiU:lmmUlammlmk'raE%
TOGFTHER wnh all aIW amFulu Ih[ Mmdnanxm. aM appunemmr. Ihrrtm MImIFmf. m m amwrss aFprrlammF, aIW dx rtKr >mn nld ,
•I m <oxn.. mnu,mkr anJ mmalmku. rtm•. n>ue• aml M:J,n Ihrm•I. aml all Ihr "Al. nFlu. xdu, mie". clam: aw drmm,d whawe• <r nl IM
- Fnnanal. alMr m lam m e4my. nl. m aN m the al. +r harFanrJ Inmm +. wnh the Mrtdnamem• and af:ryrxnan:e.. success is
Tt111A \'E. ASh 7l1 H(ILU Ibc >aW ryrnu.n an +r brpmncJ aml JrvnhJ wnh Ib afquncmnr•. unl•.Ihc FranxarX his xhcxxan5
i u >IFn.4n+c, lhr F..mn:.l. lm themsslves their hrn. aml l<wm: rcryrssnwne•ry wu<.va.. d, a+rnanund aFrtc lhll
they > h. l:. W.. IIAAKK .ANIA\UIi1KI%LRI)LFLN[Jlh,.Nl- g .... d ryrmrx.m Is Vmn aml l< :'rahlr rynss..wnMlb FranxrKx
C SsOr na allami r•rn 1+'rvn. elalmrn the wlykrx an.ryr.Ilum�L M1} Ihn.fh rx undrl lhr Framma
his SUC •,elrxg alvfi..gn•. apm P•'n•'^m tE,, n1
1\ N'ITALA N'11ER1/(11. 1hr Fr m,v.a h, V e raccukJ Ib• dcrlPdi Ihni' Jam ssI hnh Mxr
Dasa Hetzler e16-1113
F' d W. V lk - -
/C «
Russell D. Volk Denice C. Reich
MATI, Ell (7U: PRAT'. j
City and clwm, „1 Denver
Thr MxepvnF rlMrvn xy}��: ra xlm +kJFrd Ixn•n mr mIM City and Gam)M Denver hum
aa..A June .w 86 -M Richard W. Volk, Russell D. Volk,
Dasa A., Metzler, and Denice C. Reich. NIIrN.. m�nam alw ldll•Ia, ,rW /
' Ah nmm�;.ux: nFlrt• r) r J F/ 1 d
_ J wrt•
n: r
•II m 7)rmn. m.cn :E••I, amt .. ... --
+., Au Ih. Rr•. 7 -X1. fl•IIIM NARRaO\ 1,1.14 F.. •..: rV.•+.:. ••. w r,. a.. IJ ...:uw..:a. .,. E:'..Y••
aYl
EXHlUl'r A
r
STATT0
TRACT A -- FILLING
•� eoM 51? Pas.403
,. LAND DESCrIPT10"'.
- The South 68 feet of Lots K and L, Elocl: 95, City of Asper,
Pitkin County, Colorado, sore Particularly described as fol-
lows:
Connencing at the intersection forced by the Easterly side of
.,, Galcna'SLTeet (State liighucy 82) and the NO-thcrly side cf
Cooper Street (State Highway 82); thence North along the East-
erly side of Galena Street the distance of 68 fee:; thence cast
at sight angles to the last course and parallel with Cooper
Street the distznce of 60 feet; thence South at right angles
-. to the last Course and parallel with Galena Street the distance
_...of 66 feet to a point on the Northerly side of Cooper Street;
thence hest ^lo, ^.g the J(orthe:ly side o: Cooper S:ree: tae das-
tanee of 60 feet to the point and place of beginning, less and
- except the East 1S inches oz Lot "L ", Block 95, City of Aspen,
Pitkin County, Colorado;
Subject to an easement or right of way- agreemer.: dated July 29,
1952, between Russell Y,. Vol). and Aspen Aerie No. 1S=, Fraternal
Order of Eagles, covering the North 3 feet of the premises here-
in described;
TRACT•B -- CABIN
_.. LAND DESCRIPTION:
Lots 4, S, and 6. Block 3. Oklahoma Addition, City of Aspen,
Pitl:i. -. Crunzy, Colorado.
TRACT C -- UNDEVELOPED LANDS
LAND DESCRIPTICN:
Lots 1, 2, 1•, 7, S. 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20,
Block 1, 0hQ.zaosaz F' -ats and the N/2 of Lot 7 znc Lots 8, 9, 10
and 11, Block 1, Ol:lai.or..a Addition, City of Aspen, Pitkin
Cour.ty, Co :cracc.
TRACT D - DENVER BUILDING
.a LAND DESCRIPTION
- Lots 35, 36 and 37, flock 43, Byers Addition, City and County of
.. Denver, Colorado. .
y
+cY
IY,
i
xlli
r
BOOK532..�51t;
F
O
TRUST AFFIDAVIT M
C3;
4
RICHARD W. VOLK, of lawful age, being first duly sworn,
oath deposes and says:
y
4< C24
T
ao
''AA R
u
P4
1. Affiant is the Trustee of the hereinafter named Trust
and as such has authority to execute and to record this Trust
Affidavit.
2. The name in which the Trust does business is "Richard
W. Volk, Trustee UTA dated March 10, 1984" Such Trust may
acquire, convey, encumber, lease and otherwise deal with inter-
ests in real property in such name.
3. The name and address of the sole Trustee of such Trust
is:
Name Address
Richard W. Volk 550 California Street
San Francisco, California 94104
4. Only Richard W. Volk or a successor trustee to Richard
-- W. Volk, may convey, encumber, lease, or otherwise deal with any
interest in property acquired or held in the name of the Trust.
5. This Affidavit is executed and recorded pursuant to the
provisions of Title 38, Article 30, Section 166 of the 1973
Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended.
AFFIANT: &/�
- RRichard W. Volk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF
A Th foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
oi7Y"day of 1987, by Richard W. Volk.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires:
Notary Public
.. ° OFFICIAL SEAL
ALMA -CALIF
NOTARY PUBLIC IC •CALIFORNIA &y.�
_ CITY d COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO °_ "
My Commission Expires July 29, 1987
N
Cr_
N
Cf)
EXHIBIT 4
March 2, 1989
r
Mr. Alan Richman
Planning and Development Director
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Mr. Richman:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann
of Vann Associates, Inc. to represent me in the processing
of my application to subdivide my property which is lo-
cated on Spring Street in the Oklahoma Flats area of the
City of Aspen. Mr. Vann is hereby authorized to act on my
behalf with respect to all matters reasonably pertaining
to the aforementioned application.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any
further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me
at (713) 780 -5348.
Sincerely,
Afchdrd W. Volk
SV:cwv
r
r
T
T
T
T
T
T
YY�
eY
+YY
W
APPENDIX B
,x
r
r
r
r
r
r
w
r
SCNMUESEA GORDON MEYER
March 10, 1989
Mr. Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
P.O. Box 8485
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: Oklahoma Flats Floodplain Study
Dear Sunny:
,ern ,±......f e....... G,ifn 919
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945 -1004 EXHIBIT 1
Per your request, we have performed the detailed floodplain
study for the Oklahoma Flats area of the Roaring Fork River.
We are submitting this letter to summarize the results and
conclusions from that study.
The main purpose for the study was *o find what effect
development would have upon the Roaring Fork Floodplain.
More specifically, what effect would development in lots 1 -8
& 11 -20 of Block 3, Aspen, Colorado would have on the
floodplain.
We have attached the computer printout (output file) of the
HEC -II run along with a map identifying the floodplain and
floodway locations on it.
The City of Aspen defines floodway as "the channel of a river
or other water course or the adjacent land areas that must be
reserved in order to discharge the base flood without
increasing the water surface elevation." This definition
provided the basis of approach for the study.
When reviewing the current adopted floodplain study by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), it is observed
that the floodway was located on their respective mapping
according to FEMA's definition of floodway. FEMA's
definition allows for a 1' increase in the water surface
elevation when the floodplain is encroached upon. Further
review of the information indicated that the floodway as
located by FEMA through the Oklahoma Flats area created a
rise in water surface elevation of 0.1' or more. The overall
intent of this study was to relocated the floodway to conform
to the City of Aspen's definition of floodway (Ie, allow no
increase in water surface elevation as a result of
encroachment).
The study utilized existing information from the FEMA
floodplain study along with further detailed data (more
cross - sections) to generate the attached map. Our
conclusions indicated that the lots in question can be
developed on without raising the base flood. In essence,
when running the floodway through the hydraulic model, the
lots in question were found to lie outside of the floodway.
s
i
r
it should be noted however, that the lots lie in the
backwater of the 100 year flood plain and are still subject
to the requirement of the stream margin review. Attached are
elevation certificates identifying the required bottom floor
elevations that need to at least be built to.
I hope this letter serves its intended purpose. Should any
questions arise or if you need further assistance, please
don't hesitate to call.
Respectfully submitted;
Simonson, P.E.
JSS:lec /8103
r
nil
a
1♦
m
w
s
w
M
r
.r
r
r
OMB 3D67 -0017
t' FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
ELEVATION CERTIFICATE
This form Is to be used tor: 0 NMvtEmergeney Program construction In Special Flood Hazard Areas: 2) Pre -FIRM construction altar
September 30.1982; 3) Post -FIRM construction; and, 4) Other buildings rated as Post -FIRM rules.
/o SWNY UNN l N ASSOCIATES ^ 0 BOC 34n5 ASPF "1 CO 31612
BUILDING OWNER'S ADDflESS
NAME LOT 1, BLOCK 3, ASPEN, CO (AS RENA:MO WITH TIIIS BESUBDIVISION)
PROPERTY LOCATION (Lot and Block numbers and address It available)
I codify that the Information on this certificAle represents my best efforts to interpret the data available. I understand that any false
statement may be punishable by line or imprisonment under 18 U.S. code, Section 1001.
SECTION 1 ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION (Completed by Local Community Permit Official or a Registered Professional Engineer,
or)
NO
PLNEViO.
SUFFI%
DAiE OF FIPM
FIPM ZON=0E-NSM.
A zF.00 NEria YNI
GVILDING is ONrwlEr¢Y
r.84ONITY
143
0204
C
6/4/37
X
70..70
DR.FIRM n.a.
gtP OM -FInM N.a.
YES NO It Is Intended that the building described above will be constructed in compuance wiii, ;hu .....„_ -...
10 ❑ ordinanca. The certifier may rely an community records. The lowest floor (including base m UIMIIi1lf F at an elevation
at 78752. 70 fl. NGVD. Failure to construct the building at this elevation may place ;ftsl�ie�gjion of
the community's flood plain management ordinance.
YES NO The building described above has been constructed in compliance with the commuippoinyDO prom mne,w9emq I
❑ ❑ ordinance based on elevation data and visual inspection or other reasonable mean-$, V;4 It NO Is checked. attach copy of variance issued by the community.
YES NO The mobile home located at the address described above has boon tied down (a=l, tin compliance wltrx}he
❑ ❑ community's flood plain management ordinance. or in compliance with the NFIP Spi(y na.
MOBILE HOME MAKE MODEL YR. OF MANUFACTURE SER $IONS
F?y7lrrll0lnjl ll`t/01`\\�N
(Community Permit Official or Registered Professional Engineer, Architect, or Surveyor)
SCNRUESER GORDON HEYER,INC' ADDRESS 1512 GRAND AVE:!UE. SUITE 212
NAME TFFF S. STAONSON _. -
IT PROFESSIOCIAL E11CI11EER 1TY CLEIBIOOD SPRINGS T COLORADO 81601
SI NATUR r� z 3/13/39 (303)945 -1004
SECTION 11 EL 10 CERTIFICATION (Certified by a Local Community Permit Oflieial or a Registered ProlesSlonal Engineer,
X Archtect, or Surveyor.)
FIRM ZONE A7 -A30: I certify that the building at the property location described above has the lowest floor (Including basement)
at an elevation of fool, NGVD (mean sea level) and the average grade at the building site IS at
an elevation of feet. NGVD. '
FIRM ZONES V, V7 -V30: I certify that the building at the property location described above has the bottom of the lowest floor beam
at an elevation of feet. NGVO (mean sea level), and the average grade at the building site
Is at an elevation of feet, NGVD.
FIRM ZONES A. A99. AO. AH. and EMERGENCY PROGRAM: I certify that the building at the property location described above
has the lowest floor elevation of feet. NGVD. The elevation of the highest adjacent grade next
to the building IS feel, NGVD.
SECTION 111 FLOODPROOFING CERTIFICATION (Certification by a Registered Professional Engineer or Architect)
I certify to the best of my knowledge, Information, and belief, that the building is designed Su that the building is watertight. with
walla Substantially Impermeable to the passage of water and structural Components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic
and hydrodynamic loads and affects of buoyancy that would be caused by the flood depths, pressures velocities, Impact and uplift
forces associated wdli the base flood.
YES O NO ❑ In the event of flooding, will this degree of iloodproofing be achieved with human Intervention?
(Human Intervention means that water will enter the building when floods up to the base flood level oc-
cur unless measures are taken prior to the flood to prevent entry of water (e.g., bolting metal shields over
doors and windows).
YES ❑ NO ❑ Will the building be occupied as a residence?
11 the answer to both Questions Is YES, the floodprooling Cannot be credited for rating purposes and the actual lowest floor must be
completed and carolled instead. Complete both the elevation and Iloodprooling certificates.
FIRM ZONES A, Al -A30. V7 -V30, AO and AH: Gentled Floodprooled Elevation is leoL (NGVD).
THIS CERTIFICATION IS FOR ❑ SECTION 11 ❑ BOTH SECTIONS II AND III (Check One)
CERTIFIER'S NAME COMPANY NAME LICENSE NO. (or Affix Seal)
TITLE ADDRESS ZIP
SIGNATURE DATE CITY STATE PHONE
The Insurance agent should attach the original Copy of the completed forth to the flood Insurance policy application,
the Second copy Mould be supplied to the policyholder and the third copy retained by IM agent
FEMA 01-31, Apdi 02 INSURANCE AGENTS MAY ORDER THIS FORM 503.11
r
ale
r
w
w
i
i
ass
i
w
a
r
OMB a err -con
New /Emergency Program Construction:
For the purposes of determining insurance rates, buildings for which the start of construction or substantial improvement
commenced alter September 30, 1962, are New /Emergency buildings.
Pro -FIRM Construction:. �
For the purposes of determining insurance rates, buildings for which the start of construction or substantial improvement
was on or before December 31, 1974 or the effective date of the Initial Flood Insurance Rate Map (dale printed on commu-
nity FIRM), whichever is later. Special Nom: II an approved building permit is dated prior to December 31,1974, construction
must have commenced not later than 1BO days alter the date Of the approved building permit. - Existing Construction" and
"Pre -FIRM Construction" have identical meanings for the purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program,
Post -FIRM Construction:
For insurance rating purposes buildings for which the start of construction or substantial improvement commenced alter
December 31, 1974 or the effective dale of the initial Flood Insurance Rate Map (date printed on community FIRM), which.
ever is later. 'Wow Construction" and -Post -FIRM Construction" have identical meanings lot the purposes of the National
Flood Insurance Program. '
Substantial Improvement
Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a building. the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market
value of The building either (a) before the improvement or repair is started, or (b) if the building has been damaged, and is
being restored the market value before the damage occurred. For Flood Insurance Program purposes substantial improve-
ment is started when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling. Iloor, or other structural part of the building commences,
whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. However. the term does not include either
any project for health, sanitary, or safely code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe living conditions;
or any alteration of a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a Slate Inventory of Historic Places.
Lowest Floor — The lowest floor is the lowest floor (including basemen0 of the enclosed area. Iho following modi.
fications of the lowest floor definition are permitted in order to meet community permit practices:
(1) In Zones A. AD, AH, Al -A30, B. C. D, and Emergency Program areas which are not Oceanside building sites, the
following exceptions apply:
(a) The floor of an unfinished enclosed area at ground level or above. which is a crawl space. or space within the foun-
dation walls, usable as areas for building maintenance, access. parking vehicles, or storing of articles and maintenance
equipment (not attached to the building) used in connection with the premises is not considgred the building's lowest floor
II the walls of the unfinished enclosed areas are constructed With openings (such as with parallel Sheer Walls, Open lattice
walls, discontinuous foundation walls, and combinations Meteor) to lacddale the unimpeded movement of Ilood waters or
the walls are breakaway walls.
.(b) The floor of an attached unfinished garage used for parking vehicles and storing articles and maintenance equip -
meal used in connection with the premises and not attached to the- building is not considered the building's lowest floor it
the walls of the unfinished enclosed areas are constructed with openings (such as with parallel sheer walls, open lattice
walls, discontinuous foundation walls, or combinations thereof) to facilitate the unimpeded movement of flood waters or
file walls are breakaway walls.
The unimpeded movement of flood waters is imperative to equalize the hydrostatic pressure inside and outside of the walls
of the building and/or garage.
(2) In Zones V and VI -V30; and Emergency Program areas which are Oceanside building lots, the following exceptions
apply:
(a) For flood plain management purposes, the floor of an unfinished enclosed area is not considered Iho'building's
lowest floor it the area's walls are constructed as breakaway walls. However, for Insurance rating purposes:
(1) The floor of an unfinished enclosed area less than 300 square lest is not considered the building's lowest
floor If the walls are breakaway walls.
' (fl)-The floor of an unfinished enclosed area equal to or greater than 300 square feel is considered the building's
lowest floor even It the walls are breakaway walls.
(b) The floor of an unfinished enclosed area with walls made of mussel screening or open wood.construcled break-
away lattice work (regardless of the size of the area enclosed) Is not considered the building's lowest fiber.
Lowest Floor Elevation — The lowest floor elevation is the elevation of the bollom•ol the floor boom of the lowest floor In
Zones V. V1430. in all other zones, the lowest floor elevation is the elevation of the top of the lowest floor.
ON
WITH
ON
ON
SLAB
BASEMENT
PIERS
SIA.B
A
LOWEST
A
ZONES
V
FLOOR
ZONES
A ZONES
ZONES
LOWEST FLOOR
WIDOW
N
LOWEST FLOOD
sR
ZONES
�—
ELEVATION OF
LOWEST FLOOR IF
LOWEST
BASE
AVENGE GRADE
BASEMENTIS }:
FLOOR
FLOOD
BASE
FLOOD PROOFEO
l I
BASE
ELEVATION
FL000
1
FLOOD
ELEVATION
AVERAGE
ELEVATION
GRADE
ELEVATION
OF LOWEST FLOOR
IF NOT FLOOOPROOFED
I=
NOTE
A Zones — A, AO, AH. Al -A30, A99, Emergency Program other than Oceanside Building Silos
V Zones — V. VI-V30, Emergency Program Oceanside Building Silas (beach areas subject to wave ecfion during severe
storms)
Base Flood Elevation — Flood plain management requirements Including the Base Flood Elevation are shown on the
FIRM lot Zones AN, AI -A30, VI-V30. For FIRM Zone A. V. and Emergency Program Special Flood Hazard Areas the com-
mun,.y permit official or the builder has estimated this elevation by the reasonable interpretation of available data.
Enter that estimated elevation in the space provided In Section I of the Elevation Certification for Base Flood Elevation.
If this community permit official or the builder ties not selected an estimated Base Flood Elevation, enter NA
va
ass
xw
✓M
r
:r
,v
OMD 3at -0017
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
ELEVATION CERTIFICATE
This tone Is to be used for: 11 New /Emergency Program construction In special Flood Harerd Arms: 2) Pro -FIRM construction alter
September 30, 1902; 3) Post -FIRM construction; and, 4) Other buildings rated as Post -FIRM rules.
c/o SUNNY VANN, VANN ASSOCIATES, ^.0. BOX 84£5, ASPEN, CO °1612
BUILDING OWNER'S ADDRESS
NAME LOT 2, BLOCK 3, ASPEN, CO (AS RLUAIED WITH THIS RESUEDIVISION)
PROPERTY LOCATION (Lot and Block numbers and address If available)
I certify that the Information on this certificate represents my best efforts to interpret the data available. I Understand that any lalse
statement may be punishable by fine or Imprisonment under 18 U.S. code, Section 1001.
SECTION 1 ELIGIOILITY CERTIFICATION (Completed by Local Community Permit Official or a Registered Professional Engineer,
r)
YES NO 11 Is Intended that the building described above will be constructed In compliance with th s e commum y p
Oc ❑ orlh gpyy ho corfifier may rely on community records. The lowest floor (including basemeno will be at an elevation
of-II. NGVD. Failure to construct file building of this elevation may place file building in violation of
the community's flood plain management ordinance. `tlggllllllll /lggrr
YES NO The building described above has been constructed in compliance with Ilia commurgTyri gain tail) RN .I RS� el"
❑ ❑ ordinance based on elevation data and visual Inspection or other reasonable meant � • tail) �S•
.00"
O •:
If NO Is checked. attach copy of variance issued by the community. = cj
YES NO The mobile home located at the address described above has been tied down (anahg n ry plpnae Wl�h lIR
❑ ❑ community's flood plain management ordinance. or in compliance with the NNP $fe�hcatiofi
HOME MAKE
YR. OF
( Communiyry Permit Official or Registered Professional Engineer, Architect. ar Surveyor)
SCI(NUESER GORDON NEYER, INC. 1512 CRAiiD AVENUE, SUITE 212
NAME JEFF SIMONSON ADDRESS
TITLE PROFESSI AL EN INE P. I GLEtII;00D. SPRINGS 5TATF COLORADO ZIP81601
SIGNATURE C/ 3/13/£9 PHONE (303) 945 -1004
SECTION II I#1A91N CERTIFICATION (Certified by a Local Community Permit Official or a Registered Professional Engineer,
Architect. Or Surveyor.)
FIRM ZONE At -A30: I certify Thal the building at the property described
above a floor building basement)
at an of ton of fel. NGVD (mean sea level) and the average grado al the site Is at
on elevation
of loot. NGVD.
FIRM ZONES V, V1430: I certify that the building at ilia property locallon described above has Ilia bottom of the lowest floor boom
at in elevation of feel. NGVO (moan sea level), and the average grade at the building site
Is at an elevation of loot, NGVD.
FIRM ZONES A, A99. AO, AH. and EMERGENCY PROGRAM: I certify that the building at the property location described above
has the lowest floor elevation of feel, NGVD. The elevation of the highest adjacent grade next
to the building IX feel, NGVD.
SECTION 111 FLOODPROOPING CERTIFICATION (Certification by a Registered Professional Engineer or Architect)
I certlly to the best of my knowledge. Information, and belief. that the building Is designed so (hat the building is watertight. WRIT
walla substantially Impermeable to the passage of water and structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic
and hydrodynamic loads and affects of buoyancy that would be caused by the flood depths, pressures velocities, Impact End uplift
forces associated with the base flood. '
YES ❑ NO ❑ In the event of flooding, will this degree of fioodproofing be achieved with human Inlervenlion7
(Human Intervention means that water will enter the building when floods up to the base flood level oc-
cur unless measures am taken prior to the flood to prevent entry of water (e.g., boiling metal shields over
doors and windows).
YES ❑ NO ❑ Will the building be occupied as a residence?
11 the answer to both questions Is YES. the floedprooling cannot be credited for rating purposes and Ilia actual lowest floor must be
completed and certified Instead. Complete both the elevation and Iloodprooling cenllicales.
FIRM ZONES A, Al -A30, V1430, AO and AH: Cortitied Floodprooled Elevation is 'sal, (NGVD).
THIS CERTIFICATION IS FOR ❑ SECTION II ❑ BOTH SECTIONS II AND III (Check One)
CERTIFIER'S NAME COMPANY NAME LICENSE NO. (or Affix Seal)
TITLE ADDRESS ZIP
SIGNATURE DATE CITY STATE PHONE
The Insurance agent should allach the original copy of the completed form to Bus flood Insurance policy application,
the second copy Mould be supplied to the policyholder and the third copy retained by the agent
1 81.31, April 82 INSURANCE AGENTS MAY ORDER THIS FORM 5r,
Do
OMMUNNY NO
PANEL 110.
SUFFIX
DATE OF FIRM
i111M ZONE
DATE OF CONSTfl.
II^^SOErF�oOo. LEVI ^I
OVILOINO IS D W IEmareer,[Y
0(30143
0204
C
6/4/87
X
N/A
7£71.6
�O pa;FNM qq.
'l' flood lain
YES NO 11 Is Intended that the building described above will be constructed In compliance with th s e commum y p
Oc ❑ orlh gpyy ho corfifier may rely on community records. The lowest floor (including basemeno will be at an elevation
of-II. NGVD. Failure to construct file building of this elevation may place file building in violation of
the community's flood plain management ordinance. `tlggllllllll /lggrr
YES NO The building described above has been constructed in compliance with Ilia commurgTyri gain tail) RN .I RS� el"
❑ ❑ ordinance based on elevation data and visual Inspection or other reasonable meant � • tail) �S•
.00"
O •:
If NO Is checked. attach copy of variance issued by the community. = cj
YES NO The mobile home located at the address described above has been tied down (anahg n ry plpnae Wl�h lIR
❑ ❑ community's flood plain management ordinance. or in compliance with the NNP $fe�hcatiofi
HOME MAKE
YR. OF
( Communiyry Permit Official or Registered Professional Engineer, Architect. ar Surveyor)
SCI(NUESER GORDON NEYER, INC. 1512 CRAiiD AVENUE, SUITE 212
NAME JEFF SIMONSON ADDRESS
TITLE PROFESSI AL EN INE P. I GLEtII;00D. SPRINGS 5TATF COLORADO ZIP81601
SIGNATURE C/ 3/13/£9 PHONE (303) 945 -1004
SECTION II I#1A91N CERTIFICATION (Certified by a Local Community Permit Official or a Registered Professional Engineer,
Architect. Or Surveyor.)
FIRM ZONE At -A30: I certify Thal the building at the property described
above a floor building basement)
at an of ton of fel. NGVD (mean sea level) and the average grado al the site Is at
on elevation
of loot. NGVD.
FIRM ZONES V, V1430: I certify that the building at ilia property locallon described above has Ilia bottom of the lowest floor boom
at in elevation of feel. NGVO (moan sea level), and the average grade at the building site
Is at an elevation of loot, NGVD.
FIRM ZONES A, A99. AO, AH. and EMERGENCY PROGRAM: I certify that the building at the property location described above
has the lowest floor elevation of feel, NGVD. The elevation of the highest adjacent grade next
to the building IX feel, NGVD.
SECTION 111 FLOODPROOPING CERTIFICATION (Certification by a Registered Professional Engineer or Architect)
I certlly to the best of my knowledge. Information, and belief. that the building Is designed so (hat the building is watertight. WRIT
walla substantially Impermeable to the passage of water and structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic
and hydrodynamic loads and affects of buoyancy that would be caused by the flood depths, pressures velocities, Impact End uplift
forces associated with the base flood. '
YES ❑ NO ❑ In the event of flooding, will this degree of fioodproofing be achieved with human Inlervenlion7
(Human Intervention means that water will enter the building when floods up to the base flood level oc-
cur unless measures am taken prior to the flood to prevent entry of water (e.g., boiling metal shields over
doors and windows).
YES ❑ NO ❑ Will the building be occupied as a residence?
11 the answer to both questions Is YES. the floedprooling cannot be credited for rating purposes and Ilia actual lowest floor must be
completed and certified Instead. Complete both the elevation and Iloodprooling cenllicales.
FIRM ZONES A, Al -A30, V1430, AO and AH: Cortitied Floodprooled Elevation is 'sal, (NGVD).
THIS CERTIFICATION IS FOR ❑ SECTION II ❑ BOTH SECTIONS II AND III (Check One)
CERTIFIER'S NAME COMPANY NAME LICENSE NO. (or Affix Seal)
TITLE ADDRESS ZIP
SIGNATURE DATE CITY STATE PHONE
The Insurance agent should allach the original copy of the completed form to Bus flood Insurance policy application,
the second copy Mould be supplied to the policyholder and the third copy retained by the agent
1 81.31, April 82 INSURANCE AGENTS MAY ORDER THIS FORM 5r,
i
nr
.r
we
r
r
r
r
all
OMB Mer -WFF
Now / Emergency Program Construction:
For the purposes of determining insurance rates, buildings for which the start of construction or substantial Improvement
commenced alter September 30, 1982, are New /Emergency buildings.
Pre -FIRM Construction: '
For the purposes of determining insurance rates. buildings for which the start of construction or substantial improvomogt
was on or before December 31, 1974 or the effective data of the Initial Flood Insurance Rate Map (date printed on commu-
nity FIRM), whichever is later. Spacial Note: If an approved building permit is dated prior to December 31, 1974, construction
must have commenced not later than 180 days alter the date of the approved building permit "Existing Consuuchon" and
'Pro -FIRM Construction" have identical meanings lot the purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program.
POsi-FIRM Construction:
For insurance rating purposes buildings for which the start of construction or substantial improvement commenced alter
December 31, 1974 or the effective date of the initial Flood Insurance Rate Map (date printed on community FIRM), which-
ever is later. "New Construction" arid -Posh FIRM Construction" have identical meanings for the purposes of the National
Flood Insurance Program.
Subshmlial Improvement:
Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a building, the cost 01 which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market
value of the building either (a) before the improvement or repair is started, or (b) it the building has been damaged, and is
being restored the market value before the damage occurred. For Flood Insurance Program purposes substantial improve-
ment is started when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of Ilia building commences.
whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. However, the term does not include either
any project for health, sanitary, or safely code specifications which are solely necessary to assure sale living conditions;
or any alteration of a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a Slate Inventory of Historic Places.
Lowest Floor — The lowest floor is the lowest floor (including basement) 01 the enclosed area. Ilia following modi-
licalions of the lowest floor definition are permitted in order to meet community permit practices:
(1) In Zones A. AO. AH, Al -A30, B. C. D, and Emergency Program areas which are not Oceanside building sites, the
following exceptions apply:
(s) The lips, of an unfinished enclosed area at ground level or above, which is a crawl space• or space within the foun-
dation walls. usable as areas for building maintenance, access, parking vehicles, of storing of articles and maintenance
equipment (not attached to the building) used in connection with the premises is no: considered the building's lowest floor
if the walls of Ilia unfinished enclosed areas are constructed with openings (such as with parallel sheer walls, open lattice
walls. discontinuous foundation walls. and combinations lhemol) to facilitate the unimpeded movement of flood waters or
the walls are breakaway walls.
I(b) The floor of an attached unfinished garage used for parking vehicles and storing articles and maintenance equip-
ment used in connection with the premises and not attached to the- building is not considered the buildings lowest flow it
the walls of the unfinished enclosed areas are constructed with openings (such as with parallel sheer walls, open lattice
walls, discontinuous foundation walls, or combinations thereof) to facilitate the unimpeded movement of flood waters or
the walls are breakaway walls.
The unimpeded movement of Rood wafers is imperative to equalize the hydrostatic pressure inside and outside of the walls
of the building and /or garage.
(2) In Zones V and V1 -V30; and Emergency Program areas which are Oceanside building lots, the following exceptions
apply:
(a) For flood plain management purposes, the floor of an unfinished enclosed area is not considered the'building's
lowest floor if the area's walls are constructed as breakaway walls. However, for insurance rating purposes:
(f) The floor of an unfinished enclosed area less than 300 square feet is not considered the building's lowest
floor it the walls are breakaway walls.
(it) -The floor of an unfinished enclosed area equal to or greater than 300 square feet is considered the building's
lowest floor even if the walls are breakaway walls.
(b) The floor of an unfinished enclosed area with walls made of insect screening or open wood constructed break-
away lattice work (regardless at the size of the area enclosed) Is not considered the buildings lowest odor.
Lowest Floor Elevation — The lowest floor elevation is Ilia elevation of the bottom-Of the floor beam of the lowest floor in
Zones V, VI -V30. In all other zones, ilia lowest floor elevation is the elevation 01 the lop of the lowest floor.
ON
WITH
ON
ON
SLAG
BASEMENT
PIERS
BIAS
A
LOWEST
A
ZONES
V
FLOOR
ZONES
-_
A ZONES
ZONES
V
LOWEST FLOOR
WINDOW
LOWEST FLOOR
_
ZONES
\
ELEVATION OF
I
LOWEST FLOOR IF
LOWEST
BASE
AVERAGE GRADE
BASEMENTIS
FLOOR
BASE
FLOOD
BASE
FLOODPROOFED l
I
ELEVATION
FLOOD
4
I
FLOOD
ELEVATION
AVERAGE
GRADE
ELEVATION
ELEVATION OF LOWEST FLOOR
II.
IF NOT FLOODPROOFED
IIOTE:
A Zones — A. AO, AH. Al -A30, A99, Emergency Program other than Oceanside Building Sites
V Zones — V, VI -V30, Emergency Program Oceanside Building Sites (beach areas subject to wow action during severe
storms)
Base Flood Elevation — Flood plain management requirements Including the Bass Flood Elevation are shown on the
FIRM for Zones AH, Al -A30, Vi -V30. For FIRM Zone A. V. and Emergency Program Special Flood Hazard Arose the wm-
mun,•y permit official or the builder has estimated this elevation by the reasonable interpretation of available data.
Enter that estimated elevation In the space provided in Section I of the Elevation Certification for Base Flood Elevation.
If this Community permit official or the builder has not selected an estimated Base Flood Elevation, enter NA
Ci
I
Iy
a:
h
rn
7
Z_
�y p
61
�i nRTrl r IQ- I N 6 srIer- ff- T
CP 4y Y�`M1O
-- `1 1
S
al
z.
)
a
�I
F
1_
o
': f7
1� YT
Z D o is
of m
< o
0
p , n
Z � F Tui
I�I �
�I
o'z�nc Tnpo dcrnncK - - _�?
I
w
Z 1-
om
0
I
I i
TL
c
r s
Q �
S
\a
=
I1
l \
i
Z_
�y p
61
�i nRTrl r IQ- I N 6 srIer- ff- T
CP 4y Y�`M1O
-- `1 1
S
al
z.
)
a
�I
F
1_
o
': f7
1� YT
Z D o is
of m
< o
0
p , n
Z � F Tui
I�I �
�I
o'z�nc Tnpo dcrnncK - - _�?
I
w
Z 1-
om
0
I
I i
TL
c
r s
Q �
S
\a
� y0
� m p
z
° z s
��0 v
�y
_ lo'srne Y.�no zeTCro
\bb
0
u
=
i
T
i
9 Z a
I
O
P
z
�
z
R
m
D
O
--I
I 4.r
� y0
� m p
z
° z s
��0 v
�y
_ lo'srne Y.�no zeTCro
\bb
0
u
w
� 0
i
i
=
i
�
i
9 Z a
i
O
P
nr<D
I
i
•b
CV
u 0
=a
o
w
� 0
i
i
=
�
9 Z a
$3� IY vg
O
P
nr<D
I
i
u 0
=a
o
f
U Jt-
i
w
� 0
i
i
=
�
9 Z a
$3� IY vg
O
P
nr<D
I
i
u 0
=a
o
f
U Jt-
�,
(
H \
\ `
®.
«
!U
)
»:
§4m
4 ,
)
!b-
(
/ \
\
3
, p
;
[xemption
\ :
!!h
2°
.svo
�se
i..°
3b S3
D
A
I
u�
�c
am
O�
F�
3
s�
i
I �m
N .
� RRe
6i
I
SIT�1
gar � s /g•�
W 4lg•
4i9piN4
,o
�� mJ�F ��Zn.081�Q Um u z
J�.
JJ!( a
c t�
N � �
sy T/1�
u
r
8
W
/ r
2
4
l Ar
m b
I
NW �A
V � q�m pyN / � Jam•_
,y� N
$ ��•. AYE �
-w 8
N
J> l
n
00
$ ��•. AYE �
-w 8
N
J> l
n
00
� I
c in
P
0 �
T
7D
2 �
rY
0
w D
7
-- a
's
v
b
c
ro u
R
m
p �0
T 0
ID
b �
P
N m
a-�p
G S
m n
;a.i��
p t
Volk Lot Split
7
y 4 m Z
< < O
°3213653
�245���$83�
vZ+
y P
Z �
P2
7
o
APPENDIX C
�a
2
iSy i O: a Q J
zr�• Jf�
N� Z
/ e
maa.go Z p
oz
a ww =a_
It =
JII /
I
4 �
I � o
r; -
4,
g
w
WATER SURFACE PROFILES
*.# VERSION OF NOVEMBER 197E
UPDATED MAY 1984
IBM -PC -XT VERSION AUGUST 1985
RUN DATE 03 -12 -89 TIME 15:15:35
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX
X X X X X
X X X X
XXXXXXX XXXX X
X X X X
-° X X X X X
X X XXXXXXX XXXXX
,C3- 12-89 15:15:35
-W 4EC2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED MAY 1984
ERROR CORR - 91,02,03,04,05,0E
MODIFICATION - 50,51,52,53,54,55,56
r :BM -PC -XT VERSION AUGUST 1985
�1 OKLAHOMA FLATS FLOODPLAIN, ASPEN, COLORA00
'2 100 YEAR EXISTING- SUBCRITICAL- NATURAL CONDITIONS
w3 ROARING FORK RIVER
s
J1 ICHECK INQ NINV IDIR STRT
0. 0. 0. 0. .000000
md'2 NPROF (PLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH
+r 1.000 .000 -'.000 .000 .000
x'3 VARIABLE CODES FOR SUMMARY PRINTOUT
s
38.000 ',.000 3.000 26.000 8.000
a
* U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
* THE HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING CENTER
* $09 SECOND STREET, SUITE D
* DAVIS, CALIFORNIA 95516
* (916) 440 -2105 (FTS) 448 -2105
XXXXX
X X
X
XXXXX XXXXX
X
X
XXXXXXX
THIS RUN EXECUTED 03 -12 -89
METRIC HVINS Q WSEL FQ
.00 .0 3300. 856.100 .000
FN ALLDC IBW CHNIM !TRACE
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000
4.000 39.000 42.000 43.000 .000
r 38.000 13.000 21.000 • 23.000 14.000 22.000 24.000 15.000 .000 200.000
PAGE 1
'ic
.080
.100
.040
.100
.300
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
ono
.000
.000
.000
.000
7.100
41.500
100.000
.000
.000
1
141.200
11.000
11.500
100.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
" CR
873.200
.000
866.000
17.000
854.000
41.500
850.400
44.000
850.400
78.000
3R
853.000
100.000
852.000
113.000
852.000
117.000
854.000
132.000
860.000
145.000
MGR
862.000
169.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
'?
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
7.100
28.000
120.000
.000
.000
" (i
141.300
10.000
36.000
76.000
205.000
211.000
210.000
.000
.000
.000
R
862.800
.000
850.000
28.000
352.400
35.000
852.400
56.500
854.000
76.000
�3R
856.000
93.000
860.000
96.000
860.400
238.000
862.000
266.000
870.000
278.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
7.100
80.000
280.000
.000
.000
�Xi
141.400
26.000
132.000
213.000
125.000
135.000
130.000
.000
.000
.000
3R
866.000
.000
864.000
15.000
864.000
33.000
366.000
46.000
966.000
58.000
R
862.000
64.000
860.000
113.000
858.000
132.000
854.700
140.000
854.700
175.000
;R
860.000
195.000
850.100
213.000
960.000
228.000
958.500
240.000
360.000
251.000
;R
861.000
280.000
870.000
280.000
870.000
338.000
861.000
338.000
861.000
362.000
'ZR
870.000
352.000
870.000
389.000
951.000
389.000
862.000
450.000
964.000
469.000
_ 3R
870.000
486.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
03 -12
-89
15:15:35
PAGE 2
?
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
7.100
28.000
140.000
.000
.000
" X1
141.500
13.000
28.000
98.000
270.000
240.000
250.000
.000
.000
.000
3R
870.000
.000
860.000
28.000
859.000
30.000
859.000
84.000
850.000
98.000
3R
852.000
140.000
362.000
172.000
961.000
229.000
862.000
292.000
862.000
410.000
3R
861.500
510.000
862.000
540.000
870.000
579.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
` =?
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
7.100
31.000
400.000
.000
.000
1
142.000
12.000
31.000
80.000
95.000
116.000
97.000
.000
.000
.000
3R
880.000
.000
870.000
18.000
862.000
31.000
860.000
42.000
860.000
55.000
3R
862.000
80.000
864.000
120.000
864.000
400.000
866.000
480.000
868.000
590.000
2R
870.000
510.000
880.000
530.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
=?
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
7.100
70.000
290.000
.000
.000
'(1
142.100
8.000
70.000
250.000
332.500
253.000
281.000
.000
.000
.000
875.000
874.000
50.000
872.000
75.000
870.000
77.000
868.000
90.000
.GR
3R
868.000
.000
200.000
870.000
230.000
872.000
250.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
ET
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
7.100
75.000
260.000
.000
.000
..'(1
142.200
9.000
75.000
260.000
10.000
110.000
10.000
.000
.000
.000
GR
875.000
.000
874.000
50.000
872.000
75.000
870.000
77.000
868.000
90.000
3R
868.000
200.000
870.000
230.000
872.000
250.000
872.000
280.000
.000
.000
a
=?
000
.000
.000
.000
.000
7.110
305.000
345.000
.000
.000
" .(1
143.000
20.000
305.000
345.000
52.500
82.000
69.000
.000
.000
.000
)(2
.000
.000
.000
874.000
875.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
SR
900.000
.000
996.000
50.000
880.000
170.000
878.000
190.000
876.000
215.000
SR
874.000
290.000
872.000
295.000
870.000
305.000
968.000
320.000
868.000
330.000
.
cR
870.000
345.000
872.000
360.000
874.000
370.000
876.000
395.000
878.000
413.000
r GR
880.000
425.000
882.000
430.000
884.000
500.000
886.000
505.000
890.000
515.000
M
.000
.000
1.110
.000
.000
.000
144.000
275.000
15.000
400.000
235.000
'(2
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
,»3R
900.000
.000
.000
.000
890.000
3R
875.000
200.000
260.000
878.000
'nR
680.000
275.000
390.000
300.000
884.000
3R
894.000
878.000
570.000
395.000
.000
430.000
888.000
.000
480.000
.000
.000
03 -12
-89
.000
15:15:35
.000
.000
M
.000
.000
1.110
230.000
450.000
.000
.000
275.000
200.000
400.000
360.000
.000
.000
.000
883.300
684.300
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
45.000
880.000
200.000
878.000
235.000
875.000
245.000
275.000
878.000
300.000
877.000
305.000
878.000
310.000
395.000
886.000
430.000
888.000
480.000
890.000
540.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
PAGE 3
SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV
Q OLDS QCH QROB ALOE ACH AROB VOL TWA LE=T /RIGHT
TIME 'VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA
SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR (TRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST
*PROF 1
„,,HV= .100 CE4V= .300
*SECNO 141.200
141.20 5.70 856.10 .00 856.10 857.45 1.35 .00 .00 854.00
3300. 7. 2949. 344. 5. 300. 114. 0. 0. 853.00
.00 1.52 9.82 3.00 .080 .040 .100 .000 850.40 37.21
.008253 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 .00 99.34 136.55
-SECNO 141.300
301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS
3685 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED WSEL,CWSEL
-4593 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
'41.30 5.89 858.29 858.29 .00 860.82 2.53 2.12 .35 852.40
3300. 63. 3029. 208, 18. 228. 58, 2. 0. 854.00
.00 3.46 13.29 3.50 .080 .040 .100 .000 852.40 29.80
- .012640 205. 210. 211. 2C B 0 .00 64.91 94.71
0
'SECNO 141.400
3255 DIVIDED FLOW
3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS
141.40 5.46 861.16 .00 .00 862.19 1.02 1.22 .15 858.00
3300. 126. 3046. 128. 58. 361. 85. 3. 1. 860.10
.01 2.18 8.44 1.51 .080 .040 .100 .000 854.70 84.47
.00718; 125. 130. 135. 6 0 0 .00 229.56 399.03
./
*SECNO 141.500
141.50 4.32 863.32 .00 .00 863.86 .54 1.63 .05 850.00
3300. 29. 2138. 1133. 15. 294. 723. 7. 3. 860.00
.02 1.88 7.26 1.57 .090 .040 .100 .000 859.00 18.70
.005652 270. 250 240. 2 0 0 .00 527.74 546.44
r
:3-12 -99 15:15:35
SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV
Q QLOB QCH QROB AL0O ACH AROB VOL TWA LEFT /RIGHT
TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA
SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST
PAGE 4
- *SECNO 142.000
3685 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED WSEL,CWSEL
-3693 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
,3720
142.00 5.48 865.48 865.48
.00
866.48
1.00
71
.14
862.00
3300. 22. 2241. 1037.
10.
233.
558.
10.
4.
862.00
2.23 9.64 '..86
no
.040
.100
.000
860.00
25.34
.03
.008491 95. 97. 116.
20
11
0
.00
433.93
459.27
0
*SECNO 142.100
--3685 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED WSEL,CWSEL
3693 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
142.10 2.73 870.73 870.73
.00
971.92
1.19
3.29
O6
925.00
3300. 0. 3300. 0.
0.
377.
0.
13.
6.
872.00
.00 8.74 .00
.080
.040
.100
.000
868.00
76.27
.04
.017861 333. 281. 253.
20
8
0
.00
161.02
237.29
0
*SECNO 142.200
3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS
142.20 3.60 871.60 .00
.00
872.22
.52
.25
.06
872.00
3300. 0. 0. 3300.
0.
0.
521.
13.
6.
925.00
.04 .00 .00 5.33
.080
.040
.100
.000
868.00
75.41
.037311 10. 10. 10.
4
0
0
.00
170.54
245.95
7
" *SECNO 143.000
'575 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED BELOW ELLC OF 874.000 EGLC= 876.769 EGC= 977.487 WSEL= 875.096
4575 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED BELOW ELLC OF 874.000 EGLC= 876.769 EGC= 876.774 WSEL= 873.993
3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS
3370 NORMAL BRIDGE.NRD= 0 MIN ELTRO= 875.00 MAX ELLC= 874.00
3585 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED WSEL,CWSEL
3693 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
w
r
)3 -12 -89 15:15:35
SECNO
DEPTH
CWSEL
CRIWS
WSELK
EG
HV
HL
OLOSS
BANK ELEV
Q
OLDS
QCH
QROB
ALOE
ACH
ARDS
VOL
TWA
LEFURIGHT
TIME
VLOB
VCH
VROB
XNL
XNCH
XNR
WTN
ELMIN
SSTA
_. SLOPE
XLOBL
XLCH
XLOBR
(TRIAL
!DC
?CONT
CORAR
TOPWID
EHDST
..._120 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
143.00 6.00 874.00 874.00
3300. 156. 2951. 193.
.04 4.45 14.05 3.50
039699 53. 69. 82.
7.,
SECNO 144.000
3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS
.00
876.77
2.77 2.90
.64
870.00
35.
210.
55. 14.
6.
870.00
080
.040
.100 .000
868.00
290.00
20
16
C .00
80.00
370.00
3370 NORMAL BRIDGE,NRD= 0 MIN ELTRO= 884.30 MAX ELLC= 883.30
144.00
5.34
881.34
.00
.00 882.47 1.13
3300.
261.
2217.
823.
96. ?16. 310.
.05
2.72
10.26
2.55
.080 .040 .100
.008246
200.
360.
400.
6 0 0
33 -12 -89 15:15:35
a
5.54 .16 878.00
18. 7. 878.00
.000 875.00 179.25
.00 212.42 391.67
PAGE 5
PAGE 5
• �> xxx: tx::: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
HEC2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED MAY 1984
ERROR CORR - 01,02,03,04,05,06
,MODIFICATION - $0,51,52,53,54,55,56
[8M -PC -XT VERSION AUGUST 1985
° �4xxx: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
�T1 OKLAHOMA FLATS FLOODPLAIN, ASPEN. COLORADO
-2 FLOODWAY ANALYSIS -100 YEAR FLOOD- METHOD 6 ENCROACHMENT
ROARING FORK RIVER
'. !CHECK INO NiNV IDIR STRT METRIC "INS
C. 6. 0. 0. .000000 .00 C
2 NPROF iPLOT PRFVS XSECV XSECH FN ALLDC
15.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
03 -12 -89 15:15:35
THIS RUN EXECUTED 03 -12 -89
Q WSEL FQ
3300. 856.100 .000
I9W CHNIM ITRACE
.000 .000 15.000
SECNO
DEPTH
CWSEL
CRIWS
WSELK
ES
HV
HL
GLOSS
BANK ELEV
Q
QLOB
QCH
QROB
ALOE
ACH
AROB
VOL
TWA
LEFT /RIGHT
TIME
VLOB
VCH
VROB
XNL
XNCH
XNR
WIN
ELMIN
SSTA
SLOPE
XLOBL
XLCH
XLOBR
(TRIAL
IDC
ICONT
CORAR
TOPWID
ENDST
*PROF 2
";CHV= .100 CEHV= .300
_ *SECNO 141.20C
-3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS=
141.20 5.70 856.10
3300. 0. 3300.
., .00 .00 10.99
.011536 0. 0.
+C
FLOW DISTRIBUTION FOR SECNO=
w
STA= 42. 100.
PER Q= 100.0
+I AREA= 300.3
VEL= 11.0
a.
�*SECNO 141.300
x3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS
7185 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
41.5
100.0
TYPE=
1 TARGET=
58.500
.00
856.10
857.97
1.87
.00
.00
854.00
0.
0.
300.
0.
0.
0.
100000.00
.00
.080
.040
.100 .000
850.40
41.50
0.
0
0
0
.00
58.50
100.00
141.20
CWSEL=
856.10
PAGE 7
.w
a*
3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
,,.3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 28.0 120.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 92.000
141.30 5.89 858.29 858.29 858.29 860.82 2.53 2.53 .20 852.40
3300. 63. 3029. 208. 18. 228. 58. 1. 0. 954.00
.00 3.46 13.29 3.60 .080 .040 .100 .000 852.40 29.80
.012640 205. 210. 211. 2 8 0 .00 64.91 94.71
yF!OW DISTRIBUTION FOR SECNO= 41.30 CWWSEL= 958.29
STA= 30. 36. 76. 93. 95.
' PER Q= 1.9 91.8 5.2 '
AREA= 18.2 227.9 55.9 2.0
VEL= 3.5 13.3 3.7 1.3
* SECNO 141.400
03 -12-89 15:15:35
SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL OLOSS BANK ELEV
Q QLCB QCH QROB ALOB ACH ARDS VOL TWA LEFT /RIGHT
TIME VLOS UCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA
SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOSR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR 70PWID ENDST
3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS
3.70 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 90.0 280.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 200.000
141.40 6.46 961.16 .00 861.16 862.19 1.03 1.22 .15 858.00
3300. 126. 3048. 126. 58. 361. 90. 3. 1. 860.10
.01 2.19 8.44 1.58 .080 .040 .100 .000 854.70 84.49
007194 125. 130. 135. 6 0 0 .00 195.51 280.00
y0
" FLOW DISTRIBUTION FOR SECNO= 141.40 CWSEL= 861.16
STA= 84. 113. 132. 213. 228. 240. 251. 280.
PER Q= .5 3.3 92.4 .7 1.3 1.2 .6
AREA= 16.6 41.1 361.0 16.7 23.0 21.0 19.2
VEL= 1.1 2.6 8.4 1.4 1.9 1.9 1.0
* SECNO 141.500
3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS
3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 28.0 140.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 112.000
141.50 4.22 863.22 863.09 863.32 864.82 1.60 2.46 .17 860.00
3300. 0. 3035. 265. 0. 288. 93. S. 2. 860.00
.02 .00 10.55 2.84 .080 .040 .100 .000 859.00 28.00
.013091 270. 260. 240. 4 14 0 .00 112.00 140.00
"0
PAGE 9
FLOW DISTRIBUTION FOR SECNO= 141.50 CWSEL= 863.22
.STA= 28. 98. 140.
PER Q= 92.0 8.0
- AREA= 287.6 93.3
VEL= 10.6 2.8
*SECNO 142.000
- -3301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS
:585 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED WSEI ,CWSEL
..3593 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
C3 -12 -89 15:15:35 PAGE 9
SECNO DEPTH CWSEL CRIWS WSELK EG HV HL GLOSS BANK ELEV
Q OLDS QCH QROB ALOE ACH AROB VOL TWA LEFT /RIGHT
TIME VLOB VCH VROB XNL XNCH XNR WTN ELMIN SSTA
SLOPE XLOBL XLCH XLOBR ITRIAL IDC ICONT CORAR TOPWID ENDST
3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
2470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 31.0 400.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 369.000
142.00 5.48 865.48 865.48 865.48 865.51 1.03 1.11 .06 862.00
3300. 0. 2251. 1039. 0. 233. 514. 7. 2. 862.00
.02 .00 9.72 2.02 .080 .040 .100 .000 860.00 31.00
.009468 95. 97. 116. 20 11 0 .00 359.00 400.00
=LOW DISTRIBUTION FOR SECNO= 142.00 CWSEL= 865.48
STA= 31. 80. 120. 400.
PER Q= 68.5 8.0 23.5
AREA= 232.6 99.2 414.7
VEL= 9.7 2.5 1.9
" 'SECNO 142.100
.r 7185 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
3720 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS= 70.0 290.0 TYPE= 1 TARGET= 220.000
142.10 2.73 870.73 870.73 870.73 871.92 1.19 3.51 .05 872.40
3300. D. 3300. 0. 0. 377. 0. 10. 4. 872.00
.03 .00 8.74 .00 .080 .040 .100 .000 868.00 76.27
i .017861 333. 281. 253. 16 8 0 .00 151.02 237.29
C
:IOW DISTRIBUTION FOR SECNO= 142.10 CWSEL= 870.73
r
STA= 76. 250.
PER Q= 100.0
AREA= 377.5
"� VEL= 8.7
'SECNO 142.200
DEPTH
CWSEL
CRIWS
WSELK
EG
HV
HL
GLOSS
?410 ENCROACHMENT
STATIONS=
75.0
260.0
TYPE=
1 TARGET=
ACH
185.000
'!OL
- 142.20 3.34
871.34
.00
871.60
872.08
.74
.12
.04
872.00
3300. 0.
3300.
0.
0.
477.
0.
10.
4.
100000.00
.03 .00
6.92
.00
.080
.040
.100 .000
FOR SECNO=
868.00
75.67
.008658 '.0.
10.
10.
4
0
0
.00
167.68
243.35
03 -12 -89 15:15:35
x. SECNO
DEPTH
CWSEL
CRIWS
WSELK
EG
HV
HL
GLOSS
BANK ELEV
Q
QLOB
QCH
QROB
ALOE
ACH
AROB
'!OL
TWA
LEFT /RIGHT
TIME
VLOB
VCH
VROB
XNL
XNCH
XNR
WIN
ELMIN
SSTA
SLOPE
XLOBL
XLCH
XLOBR
!TRIAL
IOC
ICONT
CORAR
TOPWID
ENDST
-w-LOW DISTRIBUTION
FOR SECNO=
142.20
CWSEL=
871.34
VA=
76.
260.
PER Q=
100.0
AREA=
477.1
VEL=
6.9
° SECNO 143.000
575 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED BELOW ELLC OF 874.000 EGLC= 877.835 EGC= 878.685 'WSEL= 815.707
"_575 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED BELOW ELLC OF 874.000 EGLC= 877.835 EGC= 877.838 WSEL= 873.993
:301 HV CHANGED 40RE THAN HVINS
3370 NORMAL BRIDGE,NRD= 0 MIN ELTRD= 875.00 MAX ELLC= 874.00
3685 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED WSEL,CWSEL
73693 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
x.3120 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
3410 ENCROACHMENT
STATIONS=
305.0
345.0
TYPE=
143.00 6.00
874.00
874.00
874.00
877.83
r 3300. 0.
3300.
0.
0.
210.
.03 .00
15.71
.00
.080
.040
056333 53.
69.
82.
20
19
GLOW DISTRIBUTION
FOR SECNO=
143.00
CWSEL=
, STA= 305.
345.
PER Q= 100.0
- AREA= 210.0
VEL= 15.7
1 TARGET=
40.000
3.83 1.23
.93
870.00
0.
11.
4.
100000.00
.100 .000
868.00
305.00
0
.00
40.00
345.00
874.00
PAGE 10
"SECNO 144.000
..301 HV CHANGED MORE THAN HVINS
370 NORMAL BRIDGE,NRO= 0 MIN ELTRD= 884.30 MAX ELLC= 883.30
03 -12 -89 ?5:15:35
SECNO
DEPTH
CWSEL
CRIWS
WSELK
EGG
HV
HL
OLOSS
BANK ELEV
Q
QLOB
QCH
QROS
ALOE
ACH
AROB
VOL
TWA
LEFT /RIGHT
TIME
VLOB
VCH
VR08
XNL
XNCH
XNR
WTN
ELMIN
SSTA
SLOPE
XLO8L
XLCH
XLOBR
ITRIAL
!DC
:CONT
CORAR
TOPWID
ENDST
3470 ENCROACHMENT STATIONS=
144.00 9.54 884.64
3300. 60. 2067.
.05 2.20 6.72
.009394 200. 360.
0
FLOW DISTRIBUTION FOR SECNO=
STA= 230. 235. 2
PER Q= 1.8 52.5
AREA= 27.4 307.7
VEL= 2.2 6.7
230.0 450.0 TYPE=
.00 881.34 885.10
1172. 27. 308.
2.01 OBO .040
400. 6 0
144.00 CWSEL=
15. 300. 305.
9.3 2.1 2.1
140.8 30.7 30.7
2.2 2.3 2.3
1 TARGET= 220.000
.46 6.93 .34 878.00
584. 16. S. 878.00
.100 .000 875.00 230.00
0 - 165.48 176.03 406.03
884.64
110. 390. 395. 406.
21.5 .3 .0
370.4 8.5 2.7
1.9 1.0 .5
PAGE 11
"?ROFILE FOR STREAM ROARING FORK RIVER
PLOTTED POINTS (BY
PRIORITY)- E- ENERGY,W -WATER SURFACE,I-INVERT,C- CRITICAL W.S.,L -LEFT
BANK,R -RIGHT BANK,M -LOWER END STA
ELEVATION
850.
855. 860. 865. 870. 875. 880. 885.
890. 895.
SECNO
CUMOIS
11.20
9.
CI
L W E M
R
20.
C
L W E M
R
40.
C I
! W E M
R
50.
C I
L W E M.
R
80.
C I
L W E M
R
100.
C
I L W E. M
R
120.
C
I L W E. M
R
140.
C
I L W E M
R
160.
C
I L W E M
R
180.
C
IL W E M
R
200.
C
I W E M.
R
141.30
220.
I R W E M
240.
C
IL R W E M
260.
C
I L. R W. E M
280.
C
I L R W. E M
300.
C
I L R W E M
320.
C
I L R .W E M
141.40
340.
C
I. L R W E M
360.
C
I L R W E M
380.
C
.I L R W E M
400.
C
I L R W E M
420.
C
L R W E M
440.
C
I L R W E M
460.
C
I L R W E M
480.
C
I L R W E M
500.
C
I L R W E M
520.
C
I LR W E M
540.
C
I LR W E M
550.
C
I LR W E. M
580.
C
I L W E. M
141.50
600.
1 L W E M
620.
I .L W E M
r
540.
I. L W .E M .
660.
I. L W. E M
680.
I L W E M
142.00
700.
I L W E M
720.
.I L W E M.
740.
I L W E M.
760.
I L W E M
780.
I L W E M
900.
I .L W E M
820.
I. L W E M
840.
1 . L W E M
u
850.
I. RLW E. M
880.
I LW E M
900.
1 WL.E M.
920.
I WLE M
940.
1 WRE M
960.
? W E M
142.10
980.
I W EL
142.20
1000.
C
1 WE
1020.
C
I LW E M
-
1040.
C
I L W .E M
143.00
1060.
I L W. E M
1080.
C
I .L W. E M
1100.
C
I L W E M
1120.
C
I L W E M
1140.
C
I. L W E. M
1150.
C
I L 14 E M
1180.
C
I L W E M
1200.
C
I L W `- M
1220.
C
I L W. E M
1240.
C
I L W. E M
1260.
C
I L. W E M
1280,
C
I L W E M
1300.
C
I l W E M
1320.
C
I L W E M
1340.
C
I L W E M
1360.
C
I L W E M
1380.
C
I L W E. M
1400.
C
.. L WE. M .
144.00
1420.
C
I L WE M .
C3 -12 -89 15:15:35
THIS RUN EXECUTED 03 -12 -89
.. �* xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4EC2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED MAY 1984
ERROR CORR - 01,02,03,04,05,06
MODIFICATION - 50,51,52,53,54,55,56
IBM -PC -XT VERSION AUGUST 1985
. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx :xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
a
PAGE 12
NOTE- ASTERISK ( *) AT LEFT OF CROSS- SECTION NUMBER INDICATES MESSAGE IN SUMMARY OF ERRORS LIST
ROARING FORK RIVER
SUMMARY PRINTOUT
SECNO CWSEL EG VCH DEPTH TOPWID XLCH ELMIN Q
141.200 856.10 357.45 9.82 5.70 99.34 .00 850.40 3300.00
141 200 856 10 857 97 1.99 5.70 58.50 .00 850.40 3300.00
'
141.300
858.29
860.82
13.29
5.89
64.91
210.00
852.40
3300.00
*
141.300
858.29
860.82
13.29
5.69
54.91
210.00
852.40
3300.00
141.400
851.16
862.19
8.44
6.46
229.56
130.00
854.70
3300.00
?41.400
351.16
862.19
8.44
6.46
195.51
130.00
854.70
3300.00
141.500
863.32
863.86
7.26
4.32
521.74
260.00
859.00
3300.00
141.500
863.22
864.82
'0.55
4.22
112.00
250.00
859.00
3300.00
*
142.000
865.48
866.48
9.64
5.48
433.93
97.00
860.00
3300.00
*
142.000
865.48
866.51
9.72
5.48
369.00
97.00
860.00
3300.00
*
142.100
870.73
871.92
8.74
2.73
161.02
281.00
868.00
3300.00
*
142.100
370.73
871.92
8.74
2.73
161.02
281.00
868.00
3300.00
142.200
871.60
872.22
.00
3.60
170.54
10.00
868.00
3300.00
142.200
871.34
872.08
6.92
3.34
167.58
10.00
858.00
3300.00
*
143.000
874.00
876.77
14.05
5.00
80.00
69.00
868.00
3300.00
.
*
143.000
874.00
877.83
15.71
6.00
40.00
69.00
868.00
3300.00
144.000
881.34
882.47
10.26
6.34
212.42
360.00
875.00
3300.00
144.000
884.64
885.10
6.72
9.64
176.03
350.00
875.00
3300.00
03 -12 -89
15:15:35
r
r
r
PAGE 13
ROARING FORK RIVER
"IgiUMMARY PRI.NTOUT
„a SECNO QLOB STCHL XLBEL QCH STCHR REEL QROB
1 -1.200 7.31 41.50 854.00 2948.93 100.00 853.00 343.77
141.200 .00 41.50 854.00 3300.00 100.00 100000.00 .00
* 141.300 63.13 36.00 852.40 3028.94 76.00 854.00 207.94
* 141.300 63.13 35.00 852.40 3028.94 76.00 854.00 207.94
141.400 126.15 132.00 858.00 3046.13 213.00 860.10 127.72
141.400 126.15 132.00 958.00 3047.83 213.00 860.10 126.02
141.500 29.05 28.00 860.00 2137.78 98.00 860.00 1133.18
141.500 .00 28.00 860.00 3035.08 98.00 860.00 254.92
142.000 21.92 31.00 862.00 2241.37 80.00 862.00 1036.71
* ''42.000 .00 31.00 962.00 2260.84 80.00 862.00 1039.16
+ * 142.100 .00 .00 925.00 3300.00 250.00 872.00 .00
* 142.100 .00 70.00 872.40 3300.00 250.00 872.00 .00
w
w 142.200 .00 75.00 872.00 .00 .00 925.00 3300.00
142.200 .00 75.00 872.00 3300.00 260.00 100000.00 .00
* 143.000 155.91 305.00 870.00 2951.49 345.00 87G.00 192.61
*
142.000 .00 305.00 970.00 3300.00 345.00 100000.00 .00
144.000 260.88 235.00 878.00 2216.52 275.00 878.00 822.61
144.000 60.28 235.00 878.00 2067.24 275.00 878.00 1172.49
03 -12 -89 15:15:35 PAGE 14
r
SUMMARY OF ERRORS AND SPECIAL NOTES
a
CAUTION
SECNO= 141.300 PROFILE= 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
m CAUTION SECNO= 141.300 PROFILE= 1 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
CAUTION SECNO= 141.300 PROFILE= 1 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL
:AUTION SECNO= 141.300 PROFILE= 2 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
CAUTION SECNO= 141.300 PROFILE= 2 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
r CAUTION SECNO= 142.000 PROFILE= 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
CAUTION SECNO= 142.000 PROFILE= 1 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
CAUTION SECNO= 142.000 PROFILE= 1 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL
CAUTION SECNO= 142.000 PROFILE= 2 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
CAUTION SECNO= 142.000 PROFILE= 2 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
I
„,
M
Nx
CAUTION SECNO= 142.000 PROFILE= 2 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL
.MAUTION SECNO= 142.100 PROFILE= 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
CAUTION SECNO= 142.100 PROFILE= 1 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
" AUTION SECNO= 142.100 PROFILE= 1 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL
CAUTION SECNO= 142.100 PROFILE= 2 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
CAUTION SECNO= 142.100 PROFILE= 2 MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
:AUTION SECNO= 143.000 PROFILE= 1 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
"°FAUTION SECNO= 143.000 PROFILE= 1 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
CAUTION SECNO= 143.000 PROFILE= 1 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL
7AUTION SECNO= 143.000 PROFILE= 2 CRITICAL DEPTH ASSUMED
atAUTION SECNO= 143.000 PROFILE= 2 PROBABLE MINIMUM SPECIFIC ENERGY
CAUTION SECNO= 143.000 PROFILE= 2 20 TRIALS ATTEMPTED TO BALANCE WSEL
03 -12-89 15:15:35
r
`•LOODWAY DATA, ROARING FORK RIVER
PROFILE NO. 2
+� - - - - -- FLOODWAY - - - - -- WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
STATION WIDTH SECTION MEAN WITH WITHOUT DIFFERENCE
AREA VELOCITY FLOODWAY FLOODWAY
0
-. x: s: x: x: x::::s xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4EC2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED MAY 1984
ERROR CORR - 01,02,03,04,05,05
MODIFICATION - 50,51,52,53,54,55,56
�+ IBM -PC -XT VERSION AUGUST 1985
. xxxxxxxxxxxxx: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
THIS RUN EXECUTED 03 -12 -89
PAGE 15
PAGE 1
141.200
58.
300.
11.0
856.1
856.1
.0
141.300
55.
304.
10.9
858.3
358.3
.0
'
141.400
196.
499.
6.6
861.2
861.2
.0
:41.500
112.
381.
9.7
863.3
863.3
.0
142.000
369.
747.
4.4
865.5
865.5
.0
-�
142.100
161.
377.
8.7
870.7
870.7
.0
142.200
168.
477.
6.9
871.4
871.6
-.2
.�
143.000
40.
210.
15.7
874.0
874.0
.0
144.000
176.
919.
3.6
884.6
881.3
3.3
W. 03 -12 -89
15:15:56
0
-. x: s: x: x: x::::s xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
4EC2 RELEASE DATED NOV 76 UPDATED MAY 1984
ERROR CORR - 01,02,03,04,05,05
MODIFICATION - 50,51,52,53,54,55,56
�+ IBM -PC -XT VERSION AUGUST 1985
. xxxxxxxxxxxxx: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
THIS RUN EXECUTED 03 -12 -89
PAGE 15
PAGE 1
i
CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 3/15/89
DATE COMPLETE: k
PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
2737 - 073 -09 -002
2737 - 073 -10 -004 15A -89
STAFF MEMBER' LE5 C
PROJECT NAME: Volk Lot Split Conceptual POD /GMOS Exemption/
Stream Margin Review
Project Address:
Legal Address: Lots 1 -8 & 11 -20, Block 3, Oklahoma Flats
APPLICANT: Richar
Applicant. Address
REPRESENTATIVE:
Representative
Aspen, CO 81611
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: _$2,830.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 21
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: 2 STEP: ✓ C ej p
P &Z Meeting Dated J
CC Meeting Date_
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
-�7 City Attorney
Mtn. Bell
School District
PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES
NO
VESTED
RIGHTS:
State
NO
V Aspen Water
Fire Marshall
State
Hwy Dept(GJ)
PUBLIC
HEARING:
YES
NO
Envir. Hlth.
Roaring Fork
Other
VESTED
RIGHTS:
YES
NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
-�7 City Attorney
Mtn. Bell
School District
�L City Engineer
Parks Dept.
Rocky
Mtn Nat Gas
TAI Housing Dir.
Holy Cross
State
Hwy Dept(GW)
V Aspen Water
Fire Marshall
State
Hwy Dept(GJ)
City Electric
Building Inspector
Envir. Hlth.
Roaring Fork
Other
Aspen Consol.
Energy Center
S.D.
DATE REFERRED: 7J LO� INITIALS:
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 1S 89 INITIAL:
City Atty City Engineer Zoning Env._ Health
Housing Other: ��JJ0,4 t,°
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION
CASE SUMMARY
August 15, 1989
Planner: Leslie Lamont
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission May 30, 1989: Approved the
conceptual PUD plan, stream margin review, and consented to a two
step consolidated review process for the Volk Lot Split with the
following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a individual building permit for Lot 1,
covenants to be approved by the Engineering Department, shall be
submitted with the final plat to ensure that the lowest floor of
all structures are located a minimum of 2 feet above the base
flood elevation, and that foundations are engineered to prevent
flotation, collapse or lateral movement.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the development on Lot
1 shall be required to have a foundation or basement constructed
to comply with the current FEMA regulations and to the approval
of the Engineering Department.
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 26, 1989: The Council approved the
consolidation, GMQS exemption, Lot Split /Subdivision, and Final
PUD review for the Volk property with the following conditions:
1. Prior to submittal of the final plat, the reserved dedication
of right of way easements, 24 feet along Bay Street and 20 feet
along Spring Street, shall be shown.
2. If a special improvement district is formed the applicant is
required to join for the improvement of the width of Spring
Street in the entire Oklahoma Flats Addition.
3. The side yard setback, on the west side of Lot 2, shall be
doubled.
4. Every attempt should be made to preserve the trees on Lot 1.
A thorough landscape plan is required, before a building permit,
demonstrating how development will mitigate the removal of the
mature vegetation on site.
5. A tree removal permit, pursuant to 13 -76 of the Municipal
Code, is necessary for the removal of any tree with a 6" or
greater caliper.
The following are other conditions that pertain to final PUD in
addition to those approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission:
14
6. Prior to the issuance of a CO the dwellings shall have
complied with stove and fireplace regulations and will have to
obtain a permit for any stoves or fireplaces from the
Environmental Health Department. Any fireplaces must have gas
logs.
7. Prior to a building permit: the owner will determine whether
asbestos is present and will have to contact the Colorado Health
Department Air Pollution Control Division to find out what air
Pollution permits, if any are needed; and measures such as
watering of disturbed dirt and prevention of mud - carryout onto
city streets will be required, techniques to be approved by the
Environmental Health Department.
8. During construction, owners will have to comply with the City
of Aspen's noise ordinance, which sets lower limits for noise
between 10 pm and 7 am.
9. Prior to the issuance of a CO, a separate service line for
each residence is required subject to the approval of the
Sanitation District.
10. Before the service lines are covered an inspection by the
Sanitation District is required as groundwater and infiltration
into the service lines can be a serious problem in this area.
11. Sewer connection fees must be paid prior to connection.
12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, for both lots, a
detailed stormwater drainage plan will be submitted.
13. A final plat shall be filed prior to the issuance of a
building permit for either lot and shall include:
a. covenants that future purchasers and builders provide an
accessory dwelling unit per single family home; and
b. an indication that no further subdivision may be granted
for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt
of applicable approvals pursuant to Article 7 and growth
management allocation pursuant to Article 8.
14. Council urges the applicant to make every attempt to
preserve the existing structure on Lot 1, and have discussions
about incentives we might work with, like tap fee waivers or
whatever.
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL JULY
5, 1989:
The Council unanimously
approved on first
reading
Ordinance 43.
Ordinance 43 establishes
vested rights for
the Volk
Lot Split.
iF
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 14, 1989: The Council unanimously
approved Ordinance 43 (Series 89) on Second Reading establishing
vested rights for the Volk Lot Split.
in
8008 599 PAGE422
SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT
VOLK LOT SPLIT
(A Planned Unit Development)
314104
SILVIA DAVIS
FITKIN CNTY RECORDER
AUG I q 12 0 PH '89
THIS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS AGREE ENµTT the "Agreement "),
made and entered into this IfI^ day of , 1989, by and
between RICHARD W. VOLK, TRUSTEE UTA DATED MARCH 10, 1984
( "Owner "), and THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO ( "City "),
T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Owner has submitted to the City for approval,
execution and recording a final plat ( "Final Plat ") for the Volk
Lot Split, a P.U.D. consisting of two (,2) residential lots on
certain real property in the City of Aspen, Pitkin County,
Colorado, which Final Plat is recorded in Plat Book X23 at page
of the real property records of Pitkin County, Colorado;
and
WHEREAS, the Volk Lot Split (a P.U.D.) has received all req-
uisite preliminary and final review approvals from the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has fully considered the Final Plat, the
proposed development and improvement of the land therein and the
anticipated benefits and burdens to other properties in the
vicinity.and the Aspen area in general by reason of the proposed
development and improvement of the land included in the Final
Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to approve, execute and accept
for recording the Final Plat upon agreement of the Owner to the
matters hereinafter described, subject to all applicable laws,
rules and regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Owner mutually acknowledge and
agree that the matters hereinafter set forth are reasonable
conditions and requirements to be imposed by the City in connec-
tion with its approval, execution and acceptance for recording of
the Final Plat, and that such matters are necessary to protect,
promote and enhance the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, under the authority of the Aspen Municipal Code,
the City may require this agreement that the matters set forth
herein will be performed by the Owner and the Owner's successors
and assigns; and
WHEREAS, the Owner is willing to enter into this Agreement
with the City;
BOON 39 pay -423
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions
of this Agreement and other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and the
approval, execution and acceptance of the Final Plat for record-
ing by the City, the parties agree as follows:
1. Accessory Dwelling Units. The single - family residence
which is to be constructed on each of the Lots shall contain an
Accessory Dwelling Unit, as required under Section 10 of Ordi-
nance No. 47 (Series of 1988), and as defined in Section 5 of
that Ordinance.
2. Areas Reserved for Dedication. The 24 foot wide por-
tion of Lot 1 adjacent to Bay Street and the 20 foot wide portion
of Lot 1 adjacent to Spring Street, as depicted on the Final
Plat, are reserved for dedication to the City at such time as the
City resolves to widen and improve said streets. Within 10 days
of receipt of a written request therefor from the City, the owner
of Lot 1 shall convey to the City by quitclaim deed that part of
the reserved area which is required by the City for street
widening and improvement purposes.
3. Spring Street Improvement District. The Owner of Lot 1
agrees to join, upon the City's demand therefor, a special
improvement district formed for purposes of improving Spring
Street throughout Oklahoma Flats Addition.
4. Park Development Impact Fee. The Owner agrees that
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction
of a single - family residence on either Lot 1 or Lot 2, the Owner
of that Lot shall pay to the City a Park Development Impact Fee
for the size of residence proposed for that Lot, in accordance
with the Fee Schedule contained in Section 5 -603 of the City's
Land Use Regulations, as said Fee Schedule may be amended from
time to time.
5. No Additional Development. No further subdivision may
be granted for these Lots, and no additional dwelling units may
be built, other than a single - family residence with Accessory
Dwelling Unit on each Lot, without receipt of applicable City
approvals pursuant to Article 7 of the City's Land Use Regula-
tions and growth management allocations pursuant to Article 8
thereof.
6. Tree Preservation. A landscape plan must be submitted
to the City before a building permit will be issued on Lot 1,
which plan shall demonstrate how development will mitigate as
much as possible the removal of mature vegetation on Lot 1. A
tree removal permit must be obtained for the removal of any tree
-2-
BOOK 599 PAGE424
with a caliper of 6 inches or greater, pursuant to Section 13 -76
of the Aspen Municipal Code.
7. Stoves and Fireplaces. All fireplaces in the resi-
dences to be built on Lots 1 and 2 must have gas logs. All
stoves and fireplaces to be installed on the property must comply
with pertinent City regulations, and permits must be obtained
therefor from the City's Environmental Health Department.
8. Asbestos. Prior to demolition of the existing struc-
tures on Lot 1, the Lot 1 owner shall determine whether asbestos
is present. If any there be, the owner shall contact the
Colorado Health Department Air Pollution Control Division to
determine what air pollution permits, if any, are required, and
shall also comply with any removal measures or techniques (such
as watering of disturbed dirt and prevention of mud carry -out
onto City streets) that may be required by the City's Environ-
mental Health Department.
9. Construction Noise. During construction on Lot 1 and
Lot 2, the owner thereof will comply with the City's noise ordi-
nance, which sets lower limits for noise between 10:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m.
10. Sewer Lines. The residences to be constructed on Lots
1 and 2 must have separate service lines, each of which lines
must be approved by the Sanitation District prior to the issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy on the Lot in question. The Sani-
tation District inspections must be conducted before the service
lines are covered, as groundwater and infiltration into the serv-
ice lines can be a serious problem in this area. Sewer connec-
tion fees must be paid by the owners of Lots 1 and 2, respec-
tively, prior to connection of the service line on the Lot in
question.
11. Stormwater Drainage. A detailed stormwater drainage
plan must be submitted for a Lot before a building permit can be
issued for that Lot.
12. Binding Clause. The provisions hereof shall run with
and constitute a burden upon the title to all of the lands in the
Volk Lot Split, and shall be binding upon and shall inure to the
benefit of Owner and the City and their respective heirs, per-
sonal representatives, successors and assigns.
13. Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be subject to and
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado
and the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen.
-3-
Book 599 ?4GE425
14. Severability. If any of the provisions of this Agree-
ment or of any paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, word or sec-
tion, or the application thereof in any circumstances is invali-
dated, such invalidity shall not under any other circumstances
affect the validity of any such provision, paragraph, sentence,
clause, phrase, word or section under any other circumstances.
15. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement contains
the entire understanding and agreement between the parties herein
with respect to the transactions contemplated hereunder, and may
be altered or amended from time to time only by written instru-
ment executed by each of the parties hereto.
16. Acceptance of Plat; Ratification by Owner. The City
Council has approved the Final Plat for the Volk Lot Split and
has accepted the same for recording in the office of the Clerk
and Recorder for Pitkin County, Colorado, upon payment of the
recording fee and costs to the City by the Owner and contingent
upon execution of this Agreement. For its part, Owner hereby
ratifies and confirms each and every representation and public
dedication made and set forth by Owner on said Final Plat.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their
hands and seals the day and year first above written.
Owner: �u� l&a
Ri ard'W. Volk, Trustee
UTA dated March 10, 1984
STATE OF p )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
Q_ day of July, 1989, by Richard W. Volk, Trustee UTA dated
March 10, 1984.
Witness my hand and official seal.
I
My commission expires: (j,^^1"
iN
-4-
�4
Bonk 599 PACEV6
City: City of Aspen, Colorado,
a Municipal corporation
By:
illiam L. Sti ling, Mayor
f I A
;
', ttest:
-Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
The fore g in instrument was acknowledged before me this
�� day of ,+1989, by William L. Stirling as Mayor and
Kathryn S. Koch as City Clerk of the City of Aspen, Colorado, a
municipal corporation.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My commission expires: MyCWAlnM MOMS emrt+z "A
� 'Y,Y1kI #70"
Notgy Public j
-5-
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering: In a memo dated April 24, 1989, Jim Gibbard of the
Engineering Department has the following comment:
1. Any proposed development on Lot 2 of this submission is not
subject to Stream Margin Review.
2. The Engineering report submitted by Schmueser, Gordon and
Meyer has sufficiently satisfied the requirement that there will
be no rise in the base flood elevation from this development.
However, we would still recommend that the development on Lot 1
be required to have a foundation constructed with openings to
allow for unimpeded movement of flood waters, the design of which
would be subject to the approval by the Engineering Department
prior to issuance of a building permit.
3. The submitted slope reduction calculations were checked and
were found to be correct.
4. The proposal for utility improvements is satisfactory.
5. The applicant has indicated that he will decrease the impact
that this development will have on traffic circulation by having
the driveway which will serve both lots come off from Spring
Street. We would like to point out that the streets in this area
are substandard in width and therefore there is an existing
circulation problem even before any further development. We would
recommend that the applicant be required to dedicate property for
the purpose of increasing the width of the right -of -way on both
Spring and Bay Streets. The existing right -of -way width for
Spring Street at this location is 20 feet and for Bay Street is
12 feet. The requirement for right -of -way width according to
Code section 24 -7 -1004 C.4.a.3., is 60 feet for a local street.
6. The applicant should be required to join a special
improvement district if one should ever be formed. Any special
improvement district which the applicant is required to join
should address improving the width of Spring Street in the entire
Oklahoma Flats Addition. The existing width is 17 feet and this
is substandard.
Environmental Health: In a memo dated April 17, 1989 from Lee
Cassin of the Environmental Health Department she noted that the
proposal is in compliance with Section 1 -2.3 of the Pitkin County
regulations on Individual Sewage Disposal Systems and Section 23-
55 of the Aspen Municipal code regarding connection to the
municipal water utility system. Additional comments are as
follows:
1. When constructed, the dwellings will have to comply with
of consolidation. To facilitate your review of this application
GMQS exemption and subdivision /lot split are also presented in
this memo.
I. STREAM MARGIN REVIEW: Section 7 -504 outlines the criteria for
Stream Margin Review as follows:
Criteria 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 ";
RESPONSE: Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. has analyzed the impact
of the proposed development on the 100 year flood plain and has
determined that no increase in the base flood elevation on the
property will occur as a result of this proposal. The lots will
be covenanted to ensure that the lowest floor of all structures
are located a minimum of 2 feet above the base flood elevation,
and that foundations are engineered to prevent flotation,
collapse or lateral movement.
Criteria 2: Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan: Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Plan map
is dedicated for public use.
RESPONSE: There are no trail alignments that are proposed in the
Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails element of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan which affect the project site. The Rio
Grande /Herron Park trail abuts the rear of Lot 2 but is not
affected by the proposal.
Criteria 3: The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway
Plan are implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practicable.
RESPONSE: The Roaring Fork Greenway Plan contains no site
specific recommendations with respect to the project site.
Development on Lot 1 will be located more than 200 feet from the
River, and both lots are outside the open space corridor depicted
on the Aspen Land Use Plan.
Criteria 4: No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made
that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
RESPONSE:. Development will not adversely affect the stream bank.
Erosion and sedimentation should not be a problem. The property
is located well beyond the stream bank.
4
C,
adequate to serve the proposed development... 10 However as noted
by the Engineering Department the roads, Bay and Spring Streets,
are substandard in width. PUD and subdivision review is the
appropriate time to review traffic circulation and the adequacy
of city services.
a. A housing survey of the Oklahoma Flats area showed that
along Spring Street, beginning at Gibson, 22 units (this includes
the 2 units proposed by this lot split) are accessed off this
street and 7 units are accessed by Bay Street. A reminder: those
units on Bay Street must use Spring Street.
The fire marshal has confirmed that there is a maneuverability
problem with the fire equipment but the emergency vehicle
operators did not report a problem. In addition, a check through
the 1989, 1988, and 1987 traffic reports did not uncover any
reported accidents.
b. The Planning Department believes it is inappropriate to
require this proposal to bear the burden of providing the total
amount of right of way to bring the streets up to code. If and
when redevelopment occurs in the area the property owners on the
other side of Spring and Bay Streets should provide the necessary
right of way. However the City should not allow a potentially
dangerous situation to persist. Therefore the applicant should
dedicate half of the required amount for right of way along both
Spring and Bay Streets. Spring Street is deficient by 40 feet
and Bay Street is deficient by 48 feet. The proposed easements
should include 20 feet along Spring Street and 24 feet along Bay
Street stopping at the property line of 720 Bay Street. Although
the street continues into a dead end, the Volk property does not
border that portion of Bay Street.
Dedication of a right of way will only impact the side yard
setback requirements of Lot 1. As a result the proposed building
envelope on Lot 1 is slightly affected, approximately 5 feet.
C. Requiring the dedication of right of ways is a
prerequisite to bringing all the streets in Oklahoma Flats up to
code. If and when an improvement district is created or
redevelopment of the area should occur this property will already
comply with the Code.
2. The proposed development complies with the requirements of
the underlying R -30 zone district. Based on the R -30 zone
district's minimum lot area requirement of 30,000 square feet per
single - family dwelling unit, a maximum of 2 single - family
residences can be constructed on the property.
a. As noted above, the building envelope on Lot 1 is
affected, by approximately 5 feet, by the dedication of a right
of way.
2
The submitted site plan does not include a landscape plan. A
thorough landscape plan should demonstrate how the development
will mitigate any removal of mature vegetation on the site. A
tree removal permit must be obtained before a building permit for
the removal any other trees with a 6" caliper or more on both
lots.
5. The Slope Reduction map illustrates that approximately 62,810
square feet of land area remains after reduction for steep
slopes. The Engineering Department has confirmed that the Slope
Reductions meet the Department's standards. As Lot 2 is
approximately 9 feet above the adjacent parcel, 720 Bay Street,
massing and bulk on Lot 2 must strive to mitigate potential
problems because of the topographic features of the site. This
was discussed in number 2 above.
6. The application states that "the existing... utilities are
adequate to serve the proposed development..." The Sanitation
District has noted that groundwater infiltration can be a serious
problem in this area thus requiring careful inspection of new
service lines, preferably a site inspection should occur before
the new lines are covered up.
7. The application also explains that " no adverse impacts upon
the area's air or water quality are anticipated." The
Environmental Health Department requires permits for new stoves
or fireplaces and shall require watering disturbed dirt and
prevention of mud carryout during construction.
8. The application correctly states that "pursuant to Section 5-
205 D.9. no central open space is required... 61 percent of the
property will remain undeveloped." It should also be noted that
the proposed site development for Lot 1 preserves the western
views of the existing home located at 720 Bay Street.
9. As noted in the application, the applicant will submit
material that is pertinent to final PUD review to Council. The
general requirements of PUD review approval are similar to those
of the subdivision /lot split standards are discussed in part IV.
III. GROWTH MANAGEMENT EXEMPTION: Although City Council
approves OMQS exemptions for a lot split this discussion is
included 'for general information. Pursuant to Section 8-
104.C.1.a. of the Aspen Land Use Code the development of one
detached residential dwelling on a vacant lot formed by a lot
split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977 may be exempted by
the City Council. This proposal complies with this criteria.
IV. SUBDIVISION /LOT SPLIT: The criteria for a lot split are
found in Section 7- 1003.A.2. and are as follow:
Criteria a: The land is not located in a subdivision approved by
either the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners or the
0
1 -°
is unnecessary but several issues are pertinent to conceptual PUD
review they are as follows:
1. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Aspen
Area Comprehensive Plan.
RESPONSE: The proposed single family lots are consistent with
the Plan's single - family residential designation. Although there
are trail alignments along Bay and Spring Streets the Rio
Grande /Herron Park trail that abuts the east end of Lot 2 and
cuts across the end of Bay Street to cross the river appears to
meet the intent of the Parks /Recreation /Open Space /Trails Plan.
2. The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the
character of existing land uses in the area.
RESPONSE: The proposed development is consistent in use, 2
single family dwelling units, but there is serious concern
regarding the size of the building envelopes and their proximity
to existing development. The character of Oklahoma Flats, both
past and present, is small scale structures. This issue was
discussed in part II 2.
3. The proposed subdivision shall not adversely affect the
future development of surrounding areas.
RESPONSE: Very little future development will occur in this area
as most of the parcels have been developed. However right of way
easements are necessary to upgrade the substandard street widths
as was discussed in part II 1 and to meet increasing needs if
redevelopment should occur.
4. The proposed subdivision shall be in compliance with all
applicable requirements of the Land Use Regulations.
RESPONSE: The proposed development has been designed to comply
with _the applicable requirements of the underlying R -30 zone
district.
5. The proposed subdivision shall not be located on land
unsuitable for development because of flooding, drainage, rock or
soil creep, mud flow, rockslide, avalanche or snowslide, steep
topography' or any other natural hazard or other condition that
will be harmful to the health, safety, or welfare of the
residents in the proposed subdivision.
RESPONSE: Lot 1 of the proposal is located within the one
hundred year flood plain and was reviewed in part I. There are
some steep slopes on the parcel but the building envelopes avoid
development on these slopes.
6. The proposed subdivision shall not be designed to create
10
r^+
b. If a special improvement district is formed the applicant is
required to join for the improvement of the width of Spring
Street in the entire Oklahoma Flats Addition.
C. The side yard setback, on the west side of Lot 2, shall be
doubled or the applicant may submit a bulk and massing study
incorporating design features demonstrating a development that is
compatible with the adjacent parcel and sensitive to the small
scale integrity of this area.
d. Every attempt should be made to preserve the trees on Lot 1.
A thorough landscape plan is required demonstrating how
development will mitigate the removal of the mature vegetation on
site.
e. A tree removal permit, pursuant to 13 -76 of the Municipal
Code, is necessary for the removal of any tree with a 6" or
greater caliper.
f. Pursuant to Sections 7 -903 C.2, 7 -1003 A.2., and 7 -1004 C.,
the applicant shall submit all pertinent material necessary for
subdivision and final PUD review prior to Council's review.
g. Any significant changes to the proposal as a result of the
Commission's review must be submitted to allow staff review prior
to the public hearing before City Council.
LJL /yolk
12
M
W
-- SITE—PLAN
�J
[
. .JOM1Tf1 Zrl• -INb 3 .I.LT
\4
I II
r ;
I b
y t �
[
[
1�
i�
I
I t too
,j
Volk lot Split
Conceptual P.UD Subdivision
.$
1111MINIF*11
Exemption Application
:3
Aspm Colocackl
'+
1512 Grand Avenue, Suite 212
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
(303) 945 -1004
March 10, 1989
yr. Sunny Vann
Vann Associates
P.O. Box 8485
Aspen, CO 81612
RE: Oklahoma Flats Floodplain Study
Dear Sunny:
Per your request, we have performed the detailed floodplain
study for the Oklahoma Flats area of the Roaring Fork River.
We are submitting this letter to summarize the results and
conclusions from that studv.
The main purpose for the study was to find what effect
development would have upon the Roaring Fork Floodplain.
More specifically, what effect would development in lots 1 -8
& 11 -20 of Block 3, Aspen, Colorado would have on the
floodplain.
We have attached the computer printout (output file) of the
HEC -II run along with a map identifying the floodplain and
floodway locations on it.
The City of Aspen defines floodway as "the channel of a river
or other water course or the adjacent land areas that must be
reserved in order to discharge the base flood without
increasing the water surface elevation." This definition
provided the basis of approach for the study.
When reviewing the current adopted floodplain study by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), it is observed
that the floodway was located on their respective mapping
according to FEMA's definition of floodway. FEMA's
definition allows for a 1' increase in the water surface
elevation when the floodplain is encroached upon. Further
review of the information indicated that the floodway as
located by FEMA through the Oklahoma Flats area created a
rise in water surface elevation of 0.1' or more. The overall
intent of this study was to relocated the floodway to conform
to the City of Aspen's definition of floodway (Ie,.allow no
increase in water surface elevation as a result of
encroachment).
The study utilized existing information from the FEMA
floodplain study along with further detailed data (more
cross - sections) to generate the attached map. Our
conclusions indicated that the lots in question can be
developed on without raising the base flood. In essence,
when running the floodway through the hydraulic model, the
lots in question were found to lie outside of the floodway.
I
Iv'Y
OMB 3057 -0077
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
I NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
ELEVATION CERTIFICATE
This lone Is to be used (or: 7) New/Emergency Program construction In Special Flood Hazard Arens: 2) Pra -FIRM construction alter
September W. 1982; 3) Post -FIRM construction; and, a) Other buildings rated as Post -FIRM rules.
LOT 1, BLOCK 3, ASPEN, CO (AS RENA! —= UITH THIS RESUDDIVISION)
PROPERTY LOCATION (Lot and Block numbers and
I certify that the Information on this cenificste represents my best clients to interpret the data available. I understand that any false
statement may be punishable by line or imprisonment under 18 U.S. coda. Section 1001.
SECTION I ELIGIBILITY CERTIFICATION (Completed by Local Community Permit Official or a Registered Professional Engineer,
AIIIJ. —I nr Sllrvev0rl
OuM7 NO
P—El NO.
SC na
pA6E OF/F3.7.
RRMZONE
OArEOFGONSTR
pn n A:E FLOOD ELI
AO
InALmNG is
N,.rEmwewq
0204
/4080143
X
it /A
7070..70
0P..I... n.a.
E},Pexi-nnu R p
YES NO 11 Is Intended that the building described above will be constructed in compliance with the community s flood clam
❑ ordinance. The cenilier may rely on Community records. The lowest floor (including basem UIRd11dIR,a1 an elevation
of 7872 • 70 ❑, NGVD. Failure to construct the building at this elevation may Glace IM1q.IVigii3j; S(o4ion of
the community a flood plain management ordinance. P•.. _ - .rlSj�.�
YES NO The building described above has been constructed in compliance with the commultIr9Jlydd plain managerficyu
❑ ❑ ordinance based on elevation data and visual Inspection or other reasonable meanS V !IL, <n7 0
If NO Is chocked. attach copy of variance issued by the community. c
YES NO The mobile home located at the address described above has been tied down (encfm -grin compliance winp the
O ❑ community's flood plain management ordinance, or in compliance with Ilse NFIP Sods, .Whphs. •P�',�°
MOBILE HOME MAKE
MOOEL
YR. OF MANUFACTURE
SER(P)yl /ll7lQlNl
\\ FNSIONS
u`•1r01
X
(Community Permit Official or Registered Professional Engineer, Architect. or Surveyor)
SCIVIUrSER CORDON !IrYER,INC.
NAME JEFF S ST'ION�O7 ADDRESS 1512 GRAND AVE''IUE, SUITE 212
TITLE PROFESSIONAL ENGIVEER ITY CLEIRIOOD SPRINGS STATE COLORADO 01601
SIGNATURE I)AT 3/13/09 PHONE (303)945 -1004
SECTION it ELE �/�TIO CERTIFICATION (Candied bye Local Community Permit Official ornRegistered Professional Engineer,
/ / /// / Architect: or Surveyor.)
FIRM ZONE Al -A30. I certify that the building at the properly location described above has the lowest floor (Including basement)
at an elevation of foal NGVO (mean sea level) and the average grade at No building site Is at
en elevation of feet. NGVD.
FIRM ZONES V, V143(X I certify that the building at the property localiondescribed above has the bottom of the lowest floor Deem
at an elevation of—feet, NGVO (moan sea level), and the average grade at the building site
Is at an elevation of feet. NGVD.
FIRM ZONES A. A99. AO. AH, and EMERGENCY PROGRAM: 1 cenily that the building at the property location described above
has the lowest floor elevation of —feet NGVD. The elevation of Ina highest adjacent grade next
to the building 1 root. NGVD.
SECTION III FLOODPROOFING CERTIFICATION (Certification by a Registered Professional Engineer or Architect)
1 certify to the bast of my knowledge. Information, and belief, that the building 1s designed so that the building Is watertight, with
walla substantially Impermeable to the passage of water and structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic
and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy Nat would be caused by the flood depths. pressures valmiees. impact and uplift
forces associated with the base flood.
YES ❑ NO ❑ In the event of flooding, will Nis dogree of Iloodproofing be achieved with human Intervention?
(Human Intervention means )het water will enter the building when floods up to the base Iood level oc-
cur unless measures are taken prior to the flood to prevent entry of water Ing., bolting metal shields over
door and windows).
YES ❑ NO O Will Iho building be occupied as a residence?
If the answer to both guostlons b YES, the Iloedoreofing cannot W credited for rating purposes and the aetuil lowest floor must be
completed and carlilied Instead. Complete both Me elevation and floodprooling cartificales.
FIRM ZONES A. Al -A30. V1430, AO and AH: Cartlfied Floodproofed Elevation is IeeL (NGVD).
THIS CERTIFICATION IS FOR ❑ SECTION It ❑ BOTH SECTIONS II AND III (Check One)
CERTIFIER'S NAME COMPANY NAME LICENSE NO. (or Allis Seal)
TITLE ADDRESS ZIP
SIGNATURE DATE CITY STATE PHONE
The Imm..nce agent should attach the odglnal copy oI the completed form to the flood Insurance policy application.
Me second copy should be mppgad to the policyholder and the third copy retained by the agent
FE-1 4 81-31. April 82 INSURANCE AGEN TS MAY ORDER THIS FORM SW IT
IW
OMB Soot -Dell
New /Emergency Program Construction:
Far the purposes Of determining insurance rates. buildings for which the start of construction or substantial improvement
commenced alter September 30, 1982, are New /Emergency buildings.
Pro -FIRM Construclum.
For the purposes of determining insurance rates. buildings for which the start of construction or substantial improvement
was on or before December Of. 1974 or the effective date of the Initial Flood Insurance Rate Map (dale printed on commu.
nity FIRM). whichever is later. Special Nola: It an approved building permit is dated prior to December 31. 1914. construction
must have commenced not later than 180 days alter the dale of the approved building permn. - Existing Construction" and
•Pre -FIRM Coastruchon "have identical meanings lot the purposes or Ills National Flood Insuranco Program.
Post -FIRM Construction:
For insurance rating purposes buildings for which the start of construction or substantial improvement commenced alter
December 31. 1974 ar the effective dale of the initial Flood Insurance R.I. Map (date printed on community FIRM), which.
ever is later. 'New Construction" and -Post FIRM Construction" have identical meanings lot :he purposes or tire National
Flood Insurance Program.
Subslarrh.) Imgwo"p eal'
Any repair, reconstruction, or improvement of a building, the cost of which equals or exceeds So percent of the market
value of the building either (a) before the improvement or repair is started. or (b) if the building has been damaged, and is
being restored the market value before the damage occurred. For Flood Insurance Program purposes substantial improve-
ment is started when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling. Iloor, or other structural part of the building commences.
whether or not that alteration aflecla the external dimensions Of the Structure. However. the term does not Include either
any project for health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure sale living conditions:
or any alteration of a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a Slate Inventory of Historic Places.
Lowest Floor — The lowest Moot is the lowest fluor ( including basemen) of Elie encloses area. the following modi-
fications of the lowest Iloor definition are Permitted in order to meet community permit practices:
(1) In Zones A. AO. AM. Al -ADO, B. C. D. and Emergency Program areas which are not Oceanside building sites. the
following exceptions apply:
(a) The floor of an unfinished enclosed area at ground level or above. which is a crawl space. or space within me foun-
dation wails. usable as areas lot building maintenance. access. parking vehicles. or storing of articles and maintenance
equipment tact attached to the building) used in connection with the premises is not considgred the building's lowest Iluor
it the walls of the unfinished enclosed areas are constructed with openings (such as with parallel sheer walls. Poets lattice
welts, discontinuous foundation webs. and combinations Wemol) to lacildale the unimpeded movement of flood waters or
the walls era breakaway walls.
(b) The floor of an attached unfinished garage used for parking vehicles and sloring articles and maintenance equip.
ment used in connection with the premises and not attached to (he- building is not considered the building'S lowest Moor it
the walls of the unfinished enclosed areas are constructed with openings (such as with parallel sheer walls. open IalliCo
walls, discontinuous foundation walls, or combinations thereof) to facilitate the unlmpedeo movement of flood waters or
the walls are breakaway walls.
The unimpeded movement of flood waters is imperative to equalize the hydrostatic pressure inside and outside of the walls
of the building and/or garage.
(2) In Zones V and VI-V30; and Emergency Program areas which are Oceanside building lots, the following exceptions
apply:
(a) For flood plain management purposes, the floor of an unfinished enclosed area is not considered [lie-building's
lowest (loot it the area's walls are constructed as breakaway walls. However, (or insurance rating purposes:
(i) The floor of an unfinished enclosed area less than 000 square foot is not considered Be building's lowest
floor It the walls are breakaway walls.
(0-The floor of an unfinished enclosed area equal to or greater than 300 square feel is considered the building's
lowest floor even it the walls are breakaway walls.
(b) The floor of an unfinished enclosed area with walls made of insect screening or open wood constructed break-
away Wllice work (regardless of the size of Ilse area enclosed) is not considered the buildings lowest floor.
Lowest Floor Elevation — The lowest floor elovalion is the elevation of the bollom'ol the floor boa. of the lowest floor In
Zones V. Vt -V30. In all other Zones- the lowest floor elevation Is the elovalion of the lop of Iho lowest Moor.
ON
WITH
ON
ON
SLAB
BASEMENT
PIERS
SLAG'
A
LOWEST
A
ZONES
V
FLOOR
ZONES
-
—
A ZONES
LOWEST FLOOR
`
ZONES = --
V
WINDOW
I
LOWEST FLOOR
���-
ZONES
-
-
ELEVATION OF
BASE
AVERAGE GRADE
LOWEST FLOOR IF
r
LOWEST
FLOOD
BASE
BASEMENT IS
FLOOOPROOFED L
I
FLOOR
OASE
ELEVATION
FLOOD
{
I
FLOOD
ELEVATION
aVERAGE
ELEVATION
GRADE
ELEVATION OF LOWEST FLOOR
IF NOT FLOOOPROOFEO
MOTE:
A Zones — A. AO. AM. AI -A00. A9g, Emergency Program other than Oceanside Building Sites
V Zones — V. VI-V00, Emergency Program Oceanside Building Sites (beach areas subject to wave action during severe
storms(
Base Flood Elevation — Flood plain management requirements including the Base Flood Elevation are shown on R.e
FIRM for Zones AM, At -AW, VI -V00. For FIRM Zone A. V. and Emergency Program Special Flood Hazard Areas the eom-
mun..y permit official or the builder has estimated this elevation by me reasonable inter Prelation of available data.
Enter that estimated elevation in the space provided in Section I of the Elevation Certification lot Base Flood Elevation.
It this community permit Official or the builder has not selected an estimated Base Flood Elevation, enter NA
FEMA 2141. A.xe .
i�
I
Now /Emergency Program Construction
OMB be n
For the purposes of determining insurance rates, buildings for which the Stan of construction or substantial improvement
commenced alter September 30, 1982. are New /Emergency buildings.
A
Pre -FIRM Construction:
For the purposes at determining insurance rates. buildings for which the start of construction or substantial improvemeel
was on or before December 31, 1074 or the effective data of the Initial Flood Insurance Rate Map (dale printed on commu.
Pity FIRM), whichever is later. Special Note: II an approved building permit is dated prior to December 31, 1974. construction
must have commenced not later than 100 days alter the dale of the approved building permit. "Existing Construc ion "and
-Pro -FIRM Construction- have identical meanings for Ilia purposes of Ina National Flood Insurance Program.
Post -FIRM Construction:
For insurance rating purposes buildings for which the start of construction or substantial improvement commenced after
December 31. 1974 or the effective date of Ire initial Flood Insurance Rake Map (date printed on community FIRM), which.
ever is later. 'New Co kslrucliorl- and -Post- FIRM Construction" have Identical meanings for Ina purposes of Ilse National
Flood Insurance Program.
Substanha) improvement:
Any repair, reconstruction. or improvement of a building. the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market
value of the building either (a) before the Improvement at repair is started, or (b) if the buddinc has been damaged. and is
being restored Ilia market value before the damage occurred. For Flood Insurance Program purposes substantial improve.
marl is started when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor. or other structural part of the building commences,
whether or not that alteration allects the external dimensions of the structure. However• lire term does not include either
any project for health, sanitary. or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure sale living conditions:
or any alteration of a building listed on the National Register of Historic Places or a Stale Inventory of Historic Places.
Lowest Floor - The lowest floor is the lowest floor (including basement) of [tie enclosed area. Ilia lollowing modi-
fications of the lowest floor definition are aermimed in order to meet community permit practices:
(1) In Zones A. AO. AH. Al -A30. B. C. D. and Emergency Program areas which are not Oceanside building sites. the
following exceptions apply:
(a) The floor of an unlinished enclosed area at ground level or above, which is a crawl space, or space within me foun-
dation walls. usable as areas for buildinc maintenance. access. Parking vehicles, or storing al Articles and maintenance
equipment (not attached to Ilia building) used in connection with the premises is no: considered the building's lowest Hour
it the walls of the unlinished enclosed areas are constructed with openings (such as with Parallel sheer walls, open lattice
walls, discontinuous loundalon walls. and CambinaliOns thereat) to IaciLlale [tie unimpeded movement of flood walcrs or
the walls are breakaway walls.
(b) The floor, of an attached unlinished garage used for parking vehicles and storing articles and maintenance equip-
ment used in connection with the premises and not attached to the- building is not considered me building's lowest floor it
the walls of the unfinished enclosed areas are constructed with openings (such as with parallel sheer walls, open lattice
walls, discontinuous loundallon walls. or combinations thereat) to lacllltale the unimpeded movement of flood waters or
(he walls are breakaway walls.
The unimpeded movement of flood waters is imperative to equalize the hydrostatic pressure inside and outside of the walls
of the building and/or garage.
(2) In Zones V and Vl.V30; and Emergency Program areas which are Oceanside building lots, the following exceptions
apply:
(a) For flood plain management purposes, the floor of an unlinished enclosed area is not considered the'buildingi
lowest floor if the area's walls are constructed as breakaway walls. However, for insurance rating purposes:
(i) The floor of an unlinished enclosed area less Nan 300 square leet is not considered the building's lowest
floor if the walls are breakaway walls.
(if) -The floor of an unfinished enclosed area equal to or greater Nan 300 square feet is considered the building's
lowest floor even II the walls are breakaway walls.
(b) The floor of an unfinished enclosed area with walls made of insect screening or open wood constructed break-
away lattice work (regardless of the site of the area enclosed) is not considered the building s lowest llddr.
Lowest Floor Elevation - The lowest floor elevation is the elevation of the bolio n-of the floor beam of the lowest floor In
Zones V. VI -V30. In all other zones, ale lowest Iloor elevation is the elevation of the top of the lowest floor.
ON
SLAB
WITH
BASEMENT
ON ON
PIERS SLAB
NOTE:
A Zones — A. AO. AH, Af -A30, A99. Emergency Program other than Oceanside Building Sites
V Zones - V. VI-1130, Emergency Program Oceanside Building Sites (beach areas subject to wave action during severe
slormsl
Base Flood Elevation - Flood plain management requirements Including the Base Flood Elevation are shown on the
FIRM for Zones AH, Al -A00. VI-V30. For FIRM Zone A. V. and Emergency Program Special Flood Harald Areas lne com-
mun.q permit official or the builder has esbnulled this elevation by Iho reasonable interpretation of available data.
Enter that estimated elevation In the space provided in Section I of the Elevation Certification for Base Flood Elevation.
It this community permit ollioial of me builder has not selected an estimated Base Flood Elevation. enter NA
LOWEST
A
ZONES
ZONES
A 20NE5 FLOOR
ZONES
V
LOWEST FLOOR
WINDOW
LOWEST FLOOR
��__
ZONES
-�
-
ELEVATION OF
LOWEST FLOOR IF
LOWEST
BASE
AVERAGE GRADE
BASEMENT IS T;
FLOOR
FLOOD
BASE
FLOODPROOFED
BASE
ELEVATION
FLOOD
'
FLOOD
ELEVATION
AVERAGE
ELEVATION
\�
I GRADE
I
ELEVATION OF LOWEST FLOOR
IF NOT FLOODPROOFED
(
"'
NOTE:
A Zones — A. AO. AH, Af -A30, A99. Emergency Program other than Oceanside Building Sites
V Zones - V. VI-1130, Emergency Program Oceanside Building Sites (beach areas subject to wave action during severe
slormsl
Base Flood Elevation - Flood plain management requirements Including the Base Flood Elevation are shown on the
FIRM for Zones AH, Al -A00. VI-V30. For FIRM Zone A. V. and Emergency Program Special Flood Harald Areas lne com-
mun.q permit official or the builder has esbnulled this elevation by Iho reasonable interpretation of available data.
Enter that estimated elevation In the space provided in Section I of the Elevation Certification for Base Flood Elevation.
It this community permit ollioial of me builder has not selected an estimated Base Flood Elevation. enter NA
I J�1,4
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MAY 30, 1989
VOLK LOT SPLIT CONCEPTUAL PUD, GMOS EXEMPTION AND
STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
MOTION
Roger: I move to approve the stream margin review of the Volk
lot split with condition A being same as Planning Office memo
dated May 12, 1989. Condition B being modified to read "Prior to
issuance of building permit the development on Lot 1 shall be
required to have a foundation or basement constructed to comply
with the current feme regulations and to the approval of the
Engineering Department ". That is all the conditions on that
motion. I will do the next motion.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
MOTION:
Roger: I move to approve the conceptual PUD review with
condition A on Planning Office memo dated May 12, 1989 modified
to read "Prior to submittal of the final plat the reserved
dedication 24 feet along Bay Street and 20 feet along Spring
Street shall be shown ".
Condition B being identical to the Planning Office memo.
Condition C being modified to read "The side yard setback on the
west side of Lot 2 shall be doubled ". All after stricken.
Conditions D through G being same as on Planning Office memo
dated May 12, 1989.
Jasmine seconded the motion with all in favor.
Welton: Does anybody have any objection to the consolidation of
this from a 4 step PUD to a 2 step PUD?
There was none.
r^
a�
SLOPE REDUCTION ANALYSIS /
Ii�III�III
0
jlfl.
O }
1��• F4 �
c •i M
i
f;eti
I
L
a f,l
\w f
a >
ViiOclo[tSphtt
L". alio�cptual3 :�L'„U,�R�Sutl�iuliin �-„{�
f7fL7Iy)IUxIS•y7+fdlialli>'"� j�,�
R
-- SLTE.PLAN
! j
t
t
• I
7 ` c -fir
Elli
.al O t i ' t� 1�IV •' B+
F �
t
Ski➢cb tb6o s
�!IaP
if
n�App�Civanr'S Nom'