HomeMy WebLinkAboutlanduse case.es.320 Lake Ave.A32-96
CA LOAD SUMMARY SHEET. CITY ASPEN
DATE RECEIVED: 4/25/96
DATE COMPLETE:
PARCEL ill # 2735-124-01-003 & 2735-124-01-002
CASE # A32-96
STAFF: Dave Michaelson
/?xJr.. N e;..V IN.s
PROJECT NAME: Marshall: Hallam Lake E.S.A.
Project Address: 320 Lake A venue, Aspen, CO
APPLICANT: Ronnie Marshall
AddresslPhone: 320 Lake
REPRESENTATIVE: Jim Cook
AddresslPhone: 1020 Snowmass Creek Rd., Snowmass, CO 81654; 927-4327
FEES:
PLANNING
ENGINEER
HOUSING
ENV HEALTH
TOTAL
$1050
$0
$0
$0
$1050
# APPS RECEIVED 8
# PLATS RECEIVED 9
TYPE OF APPLICATION:
One Step - t+A1-t..-i\ tv' /.,..fli"-f:;. e>-VVfF (t;,.. sAJf:;..E;VleW
AMT. RECEIVED $1050
REFERRALS:
1a City Attorney
](tity Engineer
o Zoning
o Housing
o Environmental Health
~arks
DATE REFERRED: 5/7-r'"
o Aspen Fire Marshal
o City Water
o City Electric
o Clean Air Board
o Open Space Board
o Other:
INITIALS: 1>11
o CDOT
o ACSD
o Holy Cross Electric
o Rocky Mtn Natural Gas
o Aspen School District
o Other:
DATE DUE: ~,11..1
APPROVAL:
Ordinanc~~:~ # ~Ir 2. ;;,
Staff ApprOVal-='"
Plat Recorded:
Date: G,- Ie - '1&
Date:
Book , Page
CLOSEDIFILED
ROUTE TO:
DATE:
INITIALS:
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR
THE APPROVAL OF HALLAM LAKE BLUFF ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREA (ESA) REVIEW FOR THE MARSHALL RESIDENCE AT
320 LAKE A VENUE, PARCEL I-MARSHALL LOT-SPLIT, CITY OF ASPEN
Resolution No. 96-~
WHEREAS, the residence at 320 Lake A venue is within the review area for the Hallam
Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court Order of May 3, 1993, Civil Action No. 92 CV 47,
the non-conforming hot tub and deck is to be removed and the disturbed slope is to be
recontoured and revegetated; and
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from
Ms. Ronnie Marshall, owner, for a Hallam Lake Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA)
for the removal and relocation of the hot tub and deck along with the recontouring and
revegetation of the disturbed slope; and
WHEREAS, City Engineering, Parks Department and Community Development
Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on June 18, 1996, the Planning and Zoning
Commission approved by a 7 to 0 vote the Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff ESA review with
the conditions recommended by the Community Development Department.
:\lOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA review for the Marshall residence at 320 Lake Avenue
is approved with the following conditions:
I. A revised Site Improvements Survey in accordance with the criteria set forth in the
Engineering staff memo of May 28, 1996, shall be approved by the City Engineering
Department prior to the issuance of any Development Orders.
2. A building plan, plumbing plan or written statement explaining how and where the
discharge water from the spa (hot tub) will be disposed shall be approved prior to the
issuance of any development permits.
I
3. A final site grading plan sh;tll be approved by City Engineering before any
Development Orders are i~lsued.
-t. A final landscape plan showing the location, number, type and size of plant materials
shall be approved by Parks Department prior to the issuance of any development permits.
S. Thc existing hot tub, decking, posts and concrete footings shall be completely
removed from the area within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA. A demolition permit shall be
issued prior to site work or demolition.
6. The new deck and relocated hot tub shall be constructed in accordance with the
development application and addendum (see section of demolition and restoration). No
work shall be initiated prior to the issuance of all required permits.
7. The slope facing Hallam Lake shall be restored to its original grade with new fill to
compacted in eight (8) inch lifts and "feathered" into the slopes of adjacent properties.
Slope stabilization mats shall be used as required.
8. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed towards the
nature preserve or located down the slope. Light sources shall not illuminate greater than
eight feet from the building or structures.
9. Any future development (including but not limited to: decks, spas, terraces, patios,
fences, non-native plant materials) shall not encroach into the fifteen foot ESA setback.
10. The removal and relocation of the hot tub and deck along with the revegetation of the
slope shall be completed within ninety (90) days of obtaining a building permit.
II. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during
public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on June 18,1996.
Attest:
Planning and Zoning Commission:
~cY~
<<:ckie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
~~ ~auVLb
Sara Garton, Chairperson
J?ut- - ( I / 9'1 T
>:: P<::
U 2 H
(!)w w
zO co w ~ H
~~ :J 0
f- <( <e:
uw 0 0: ~ ..
wz Z (!) ~
Oz 0 .J ~z
x- o!l (/) <( ~
",w (/) (!) z ~~
(/) z (5
(!):J ::;; z
Z' f:: iI' <e:
_w :J E-<"-<
f-O: .J (/) 0 ~~
!Qo: 0 -(/) u. ~ ~8
xo:
xo U Ww 0 ~06
Wu. w w- w ~~
w(/) > >a. z ~ E-<.
>- 0::;; ou :J ...... Ul 0
0'"
::;;x ::;;<( ::;;z ~~ Z ~u_
Ww wO
W'" 0: co O:U
O:o!l Z <z
Clt; o ..J~
o~
~:r: ~ NUl
<'l<
f-~
WOZ-
OwWffi
<(f-U<(
O:U<(f-
<!)<(jCl)
....-::""\ <i! ~ <( w
& ZOOQ .
........, (5Uf->O
__ ZO~
- - 0: ~
Il~ @5~ffi";-5
1~~ ~::l~ffJ~
.1 WU:::i=CJ)
o:~u.ffi<(
. 0 w . a.
~Z(/)of!!
W,.li:o:<(
0: >:J a.::;;
.J":'
<(.J
0:-
:JI
W . f- (!)
<(Z
:::(/)Zf::
~<(W(/)
ZCl)~X
"'Iw
3E~ULL
<(I<(O
W",OW
O:o!lf-U
<(",OZ
ClWW<
W(/)o:o:
W -<(
en (1):J w .
,~Oa.~
w Wa.._
o:(!)o:<((/)
o
Wl-S!'
_.Jf-
f-.J'"
<(-
~~[;SO
J=(!)LLW
(/)ZO'"
-- 0:
~~(oW
f-~~;;:
:JW_O
Uo:;;:;:[
'w
ZQ
o
Z~O
(!)(!)W
f-(!)O:
!QZ~
x-(/)
W::;;W
u.0:0:
o1(w
WZ'"
~OO
.JUf-
-,
w
f-
<('"
U:J
9f-
~b
o!lI
W(!)
>Z
Of::
::;;!Q
Wx
o:w
z
o
-
f-4
<
~
o
f-4
rJ:J
~
~
~
Z
o
-
f-4
-
~
o
~
~
o
@
z
00
- ,
f-4;....
U_"
~'<t<
rJ:J';:;
f-~
WClZ~
OWW[D
<(f-U<(
O:U<(f-
(!)<(dCl)
-lD..<(w
<(::;; 0
zoo- .
-uf->o
(!) zow
o:eo-a:Q;
ozffi"-:J
~~~~~
wu.wl-CI)
o:~u.ffi<(
~wui"-'"
(/)Zf-Oi;;:
W-LLa:_
0:~:J"-::;;
.J":'
<(.J
0:-
:JI
W f-(!)
> . <( Z
-(/)Zf::
~<(W!Q
ZCl)>><
_[D:EW
;;::JUu.
<(!E<(O
W",OW
O:o!lf-U
<("'OZ
@~~~ I
~CI)~Wu.i
,~O"-O
W WD.._
0: (!)o: <((/)
P<::
>:: 0
U H
(!)w w ~
ZO '" w ..J H
:J 0
~;;: f- <( < <e:
uw 0 0: ~i
wz Z (!) ~
Oz 0 .J
x- o!l '" <( Cf)
"'w '" (!) ~ ~~ ~
(/) Z (!)
(!):J Z
Z' ::;; ~ iI' Ul< <e: E-<"-<
_w :J
f-O: .J 0 O~ ~ ~~
!Qo: 0 -(/) u.
Xo U [;So: 0 E-<..J ~ ~cx:
Wu. W W~ W ~~
W(/) > >"- Z
>- ~:;: OU :J ...... Ul 0
0'" ::;;Z ~~ Z ~~
::;;X Ww wO
W'" 0:'" O:U Z <Z
O:o!l
OE-< o ..J~
00 O~
~ NUl
<:r: <'l<
O(!)
W f-_
_.Jf-
f-.J(/)
<(-
(!)".XO
Z>W
i=(!)U.~
!Q~00:
Xz" W
W-"';;:
f-~~O
:Jw:;:.J
Oa:;>u.
'W
Zo
o
Z~O
(!)(!)W
f-(!)O:
!QZ~
X-(/)
W::;;W
u.0:0:
ofrw
WZCO
~OO
.JUf-
I
W
f-
<3'"
O:J
.Jf-
~b
o!lI
W(!)
>Z
of::
::;;!Q
Wx
o:w
z
o
~
E-t
-<
~
o
E-t
rJ:J
~
~
~
Z
o
~
E-t
~
,...;l
o
~
~
o
@
z
0=
~O
E-t~
U."
~~
rJ:J';:;
, I
~~ .~~( 0) jti~\~
~ )- ,. ~< :>:
~i I ::~rm. LI1
>\ '-I, .~,,~ 1:'"'"
~ ~. -'" '~ci I ~ ~I-:t ~
&/ -~ . .. <" ~~
it ~; · :. I .;): ~~ II
~ l' ~. I 1 .,' .,' 1~ 1
~ \ \, '. I
! i-. .
10
- 1
, ~I ~
~i ~
", 0
. ". 'oJ'" 7," , r , \
. " . ., 'J Cl i
'al'.,'. I , I' : ,~
- ;i: , -' ~ I
~~ ' ~O I
:.~, I I I ~ t~
:t ~ ><. (H'
.~ : j \11~i~~
m~
~
.1 ~
~
lD
I
I
r /
'ill /
Q..-
D ! /
~
\f'
II
~ I
~ ~ ~,
{'- :t
I ~~I
!
, ~~I
I
I
, ~
\
-
-=t- I
\
.
I
) . )
',1:
I. :.': ': I
II- ", . .
I,' I r ).
_, \U I ~
" 0 ,
J:.j d'~ I r
.: cl , I ~
'.' I!r , I,
I' _ . ~ . I
." , C ~ .'~ ,
. :'1/: ~ ':' . . J
, . I
I I
"
.
, ,
I' (
, .
~ .
I I
.
\\\ , .
,
p .
, ,
. I
, 1..'\,
# , I I I
( II I
'."'/' I . I I
::1"- ,
, ,
: if
. ...\ ,
\i. ~ /) ,
r ',~ I' i.
1.." .
" '.'
.
'. '.
..
U}
~ ~
(\~
~'t
:1 R
: . ~~~
i~ a~~
11 ~~ ~
i~ ul ~ ~
I\-, ' ~ ~~ 1\t
, ~~,
: lp1~ I
I
't'
-I
. -
~ _1\
~6~
~~
~~~i :
~:i,lilll
".."....
.
I ' I
~ ---". , u);!
'~I I I, I
,.. i. I ! i~I;~~
!!~ I'~ r ~. ; I'~~
~~ i~ ~; i !~
' .,....Ii~_
~~ ~~ ~~
1t..;.,l,"="
.~~ o\) ~o.
'":"), . 0~ I _
~ D Ul~,~ [~~ I: ~S&
~
:t:ti _~ i,i~~~
(J ~ ~ ~ !"tj;
.ffi <t~ [t\ '1 c;:'l.:::,
~ ' I ~~j -~
~[)
@) q~ ,i3
~ ~ I<~~-c-
I 'I i I i I
U)t ~~
:z~ 1r
:J ~~ -~
,
)
.~~
~ tt
1:\ ~
~ ~:1
~ ~1
, .~
~
l:-,,- ~
:IrE.
~~
'-
, ,
'. ."
&
~
-~
.
O.\..
j
, ,
"".......
-
-""" ,
.
11 !
, ,
1; :
I! I
. 1
III i
II ,
. I ~ I
II! I
. ~ ,I i I
~2lii
! ' f I
!, !-IG i
liir'i
i: \. !
. !: i
~ I' .
~I;~
I .
~.
if
u.c.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU:
Bob Nevins, City Planner
Dave Michaelson, Deputy Director ~ 1-1\ .
FROM:
RE:
Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review
Parcel J.D. Number 2735-124-01-003 & 2735-124-01-002
DATE:
June 18, 1996
Summary: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing, non-conforming hot tub
and deck and to revegetate the disturbed slope area overlooking Hallam Lake pursuant to
the Court Order of May 3, 1993. The hot tub and deck will be relocated to an area
adjoining the existing residence and deck which are outside the fifteen foot ESA setback
along the top of slope. Community Development staff recommend approval with
conditions.
Attached are the following: Exhibit A, Development Application; Exhibit B, Civil
Action No. 92 CV 47, Judgment and Order; Exhibit C, Referral Memorandums; and
Exhibit D, Chapter 26.68, Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA), and
Section 26.64.040(D), Special Review.
Applicant: Ms. Ronnie Marshall, as represented by Mr. Jim Cook
Location: 320 Lake Avenue (Parcell, Marshall Lot-split), Aspen, Colorado
Lot Size: 7,075 square feet
Zoning: Medium-Density Residential (R-6) with Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally
Sensitive Area (ESA) Overlay
Procedure: One-step commission review with no public hearing or notification
requirement.
Referral Comments: Complete referral memorandums are attached as Exhibit C.
Parks Department: Upon review of the application and a site inspection, Parks
Department has made the following recommendations:
1. A 5" apple tree will be removed due to the relocation of the deck and hot tub.
No permit is required for the removal of this tree.
2. Jute landscape netting infused with seeds shall be used to revegetate the slope
after the removal of the deck. The seed mixture shall be a native species for
this area. Hydro-seeding would also be an acceptable alternative.
3. Choke cherry bushes (prunus virginia) are also recommended to be planted.
4. The existing juniper trees may remain if there is no objection from ACES.
Engineering: Based upon a review of the application and site visit, Engineering has the
following recommendations:
I. The preliminary improvements survey contains several technical surveying
deficiencies and insufficient detail.
2. The applicant needs to explain how and where the discharge water from the
spa will disposed. Water drained or discharged from the spa shall not be
released over the edge of the bluff.
3. A site grading plan shall be submitted for review.
Planning Staff Comments: The Hallam Lake Bluff Environmentally Sensitive Area
(ESA) Overlay was adopted via Ordinance 71-1990 and codified within Chapter 26.68 of
the Aspen Land Use Regulations. The intent of this ESA Overlay is "to heighten review
of development in this area so as to reduce noise and visual impacts on the nature
preserve, protect against slope erosion and landslide, minimize impacts on surface runoff,
maintain views to and from the nature preserve, and to ensure the aesthetic and historical
integrity of Hallam Lake and the nature preserve".
Since the deck and hot tub are existing within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA, the critical
issues that need to be resolved are: I) the removal and relocation of the deck and hot tub;
and 2) the stabilization and revegetation of the slope overlooking the nature preserve.
Community Development staff has reviewed the application and conducted a site visit.
Staff's findings pursuant to Section 26.68.060(C) are as follows:
1. The existing deck and hot tub shall be removed entirely, both above and below
the top of slope.
2. The proposed relocation of the deck and hot tub complies with the fifteen foot
setback from top of slope. There is a four foot, wooden retaining wall that
currently separates the lawn area from the level of the hot tub deck. It is within
ESA setback. Rather than removing the retaining wall and reconfiguring the
slope, Staff recommends that the retaining wall be lowered approximately one
foot so that it is flush with the grade of the lawn area and three feet high or less
on the downhill slope facing Hallam Lake. With the planting of native shrubs
and grasses in front of the wooden wall, the visual impact would be minimal
and conform with the conditions set forth in "Section 26.64.040(D).
3. All development outside the fifteen foot setback from top of slope does not
exceed the height delineated by a line drawn at a forty-five degree angle from
ground level at the top of slope (see Site Section, Aspen Survey Engineers).
4. A landscape plan shall be submitted and approved by Parks Department prior
to the issuance of demolition and building permits.
5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed
toward the nature preserve or located down the slope.
6. No fill material shall be placed on the face of the slope unless it is to be part of
an approved grading and landscape plan.
7. Site sections and plans are included as Exhibit A, Development Application.
Recommendations: Staff recommends approval of the Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff ESA
Review for the relocation and revegetation of the hot tub and deck areas with the
following conditions:
I. A revised Site Improvements Survey in accordance with the criteria set forth in the
Engineering staff memo of May 28, 1996, shall be approved by the City Engineering
Department prior to the issuance of any Development Orders.
2. A building plan, plumbing plan or written statement explaining how and where the
discharge water from the spa (hot tub) will be disposed prior to the issuance of any
development permits.
3. A final site grading plan shall be approved by Engineering before any Development
Orders shall be issued.
4. A final landscape plan showing the location, number, type and size of plant materials
and any site grading shall be approved by Parks prior to the issuance of any development
permits.
5. The existing hot tub, decking, posts and concrete footings shall be completely
removed from the area within the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA. A demolition permit shall be
issued prior to site work or demolition.
6. The new deck and relocated hot tub shall be constructed in accordance with the
development application (see proposed site plan design). No work shall be initiated prior
to the issuance of all required permits.
7.. The existing wooden retaining wall shall be lowered so that it is flush with the
existing grade of the lawn area and not greater than three feet above the finish grade of
the downhill slope facing Hallam Lake.
8. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed towards the
nature preserve or located down the slope. Light sources shall not illuminate gre~ter than
eight feet from the building or structures.
~
9. Any future development (including but not limited to: decks, spas, terraces, patios,
fences, non-native plant materials) shall not encroach into the fifteen foot ESA setback.
10. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during
public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval.
Alternative Recommendations: Planning and Zoning Commission may approve the
conditions above, approve additional conditions or disapprove the development
application in the Hallam Lake Bluff ESA.
Proposed Motion: "I move to approve the Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review
with the conditions set forth in the Community Development Memo of June 18, 1996."
Exhibits:
"A" Application of Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Review
"B' Civil Action No. 92 CV 47, Judgment and Order
"C" Referral Memorandums
"D" Chapter 26.68, Development in Environmentally Sensitive Areas;
Section 26.64.040(D), Special Review
r-
'"'
.
Exhibit A
FROM THE DESK OF
JAMES M. COOK
APRIL 22,1996
DAVE MICHAELSON
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
REF: SUBMITTAL FOR
RELOCATION OF
EXISTING HOT TUB
320 LAKE STREET
ASPEN, CO.81611
DEAR DAVE,
ENCLOSED ARE EIGHT COPIES OF THE APPLICATION FOR A E.S.A. HALLAM LAKE BLUFF REVIEW.
FOR REFERENCED PROJECT. ALSO ENCLOSED ARE EIGHT COPIES OF THE CURRENT SURVEY AS PREPARED
BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS, ALONG WITH A CHECK # 8346 FOR THE AMOUNT OF $1050.00.
I TRUST THIS IS THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO PROCESS THIS APPLICATION IN A TIMELY MANNER. IF
THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO GIVE ME A CALL AT 927 - 4327.
YOURS TRULY,
JAMES M. COOK
1020 SNOW MASS CREEK ROAD
SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654
(970) 927-4327
-
"'
.
ATTACHMENT 1
LAND USE APPLICATION FORM
1. Project name_R<:::>..J U I e t'>1.A\2.S~AL-L-
2. Project location -:v1~ L-V~ --:-" v ~ J A.c;F'E'''-.l ~
,
(indicate street address, lot and block number or metes and bounds description)
3. Present zoning
1f2 -&
5. Applicant's name, address and phone number ~
\:::..E- ;\. - 595\
6. Representative's name, address, and phone number .1 11--\ r- ~
lo'Zo 6~DwMA'70 C~\:::f<.O . 0\.b~MA~, OJ 8({;'e:;4
(''Ilc> ') 421-4~Z1
7. Type of application (check all that apply):
Conditional Use
Special Review
8040 Greenline
Stream Margin
Subdivision
GMQS allotment
View Plane
Lot Split/Lot Line
Adjustment
..x..
Conceptual SPA
Final SPA
Conceptual PUD ..x
Final PUD
Text/Map Amend.
GMQS exemption
Condom iniumization_
~h. 1+"'1 I "-"'1
~K.:E:..
Conceptual HPC
Final HPC
Minor HPC
Relocation HPC
Historic Landmark
Demo/Partial Demo
Design Review
Appeal Committee
8. Description of existing uses (number and type of existing structures,
approximate sq. ft., number of bedrooms, any previous approvals granted to the
property) -nuo hTDtZ.'< S\\...lC?l.f:: \=A\.-1 I\.-'-{ ~biF.:.\oe~E'. A.~ox.
\4fx) SF'. - ~f" "51)'eV~ - --nAlZEE- ~rx::>f)')M. ~-
~t::..G'.::: ..../"b!Z. Ib......\...lr~ ~'-{ ZC)\..J\~ ~At2.0 ="P-
A.o~~'<'::. \" \-I'\p~y\ 0ue ='F 'Ft""l \
9. Description of development application bCGLc::x:p. no l-1 c:>P.'" l 'r.l~ -
{..I')~.\"~lZHIWG !-tar \\~?, A.un "-DO\~ ~.v<\f-=V\!.)IZ..
ber::\:::" FIZI\ I..\I=~T ~I=- - ~ ~ -,;?'> .
10. Have you completed and attached the following?
1 Attachment 1- Land use application form
-X.. Attachment 2- Dimensional requirements form
1.. Response to Attachment 3
~ Response to Attachment 4
ATTACHMENT 2
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Applicant: l<ol-l~\= \--1,..e.o.\p..\ \
Address: ~ \ "'y""" ~T<7""c.'\
Zone district: .c.-
Lot size: 'o.,~ c:::;. F
Existing FAR: N ."'-
Allowable FAR: ~ .j>. .
Proposed FAR: lo-l ./:>. .
Existing net leasable (commercial): \J.. A
Proposed net leasable (commercial): \.I .f:>..
Existing % of site coverage: '21 "7&
Proposed % of site coverage: 2 (" '70
Existing % of open space: N.~
Proposed % of open space: M.I>..
Existing maximum height: Princioal blda: \..l......
Proposed max. height: Princioal blda: ~.l>.. .
Proposed % of demolition: \..\ . /lo.
Existing number of bedrooms: =-
Proposed number of bedrooms: - . \..1. to..
Existing on-site parking spaces: \.-1. /to.
On-site parking spaces required: ~ . A.
Accesorv blda:
Accessorv blda:
Setbacks
Existing:
Front: '2 5
Rear: "5 I
Combined
Front/rear:~
Side: "24. ...........
Side: y,..~\tas
Combined
Sides: ZG. Y,,6.li:'.
Minimum required:
Front: \0
Rear: \ c;")
Combined
Front/rear: ~
Side: 6
Side: S
Combined
Sides: ----ZL-
Proposed:
Front: '26
Rear: ... ~'-6
Combined I
Front/rear: Ai! 64.8'
Side: '2..4 ........~.
Side: VA 12.1 ~"
Combined
Sides: '2-t., V'.6..e Il=S
Existing nonconformities or encroachments:
WOf2.r-R .o:,\Oc.=. - eXIST~
e:X'I~rG \.l..nc")he-
HOI TUB
'SeT ~.Y
Variations requested: i2.eLoCATl\..Jr:. l-t-oT" \\.Ie. ~ oec~
--re. COY\pt-'< j...J / lZe-GI JLATlo~~
(HPC has the ability to vary the following requirements: setbacks, distance between buildings.
FAR bonus of up to 500 sq.f\., site coverage variance up to 5%, height variations under the
cottage infill program, parl<ing waivers for residential uses in the R-6, R-15, RMF, CC, and 0
zone districts)
\.1. A ,
\....\a\ ~f'FL\ c .e-t::>L e:
--
.
FROM THE DESK OF
JAMES M. COOK
APRiL 19, 1996
REF: HOT TUB RELOCATiON
RONNIE MARSHALL
320 LAKE STREET
ASPEN, CO. 81611
THE FOLLOWING IS IN RESPONSE TO ATTACHMENTS 3 & 4:
ATTACHMENT 3: GENERAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
1. SEE ATTACHED LETTER.
2. SEE ATTACHED SURVEY BY ASPEN SURVEY ENGINEERS.
3. SEE ATTACHMENT FROM STEWART TITLE COMPANY.
4. ATTACHED.
ATTACHMENT 4: SPECIFIC SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS. MINOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
1. SEE ATTACHED SURVEY.
2. SEE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION ITEM 4.
3.SEE ATTACHED DRAWING.
4. THE EXISTING TWO STORY VICTORIAN STYLE HOUSE CONSIST OF PAINTED BEVELED BOARD SIDING WITH
CONSISTENT ORNAMENTATION, WITH WOOD PORCHES AND DECKS ATTACHED THERETO. IT IS INTENDED
THAT THESE DETERIORATING EAST DECKS BE RESURFACED AND EXTEND TO ACCOMMODATE THE
RELOCATION OF THE NON-CONFORMING HOT TUB. THE MATERIALS WILL BE PAINTED AND EXPOSED
REDWOOD. EXISTING HANDRAILS TO BE MODIFIED TO CONFORM TO NEW DESIGN.
THE NEW DESIGN is A FORMAL APPLICATION ADDRESSING THE SYMMETRY OF THE EAST ELEVATION AND
GENERATING OFF THE CENTER LINE OF THE EXISTING KITCHEN. THE DECK AND THE HOT TUB ARE STEPPED
DOWN FROM THE MAIN FLOOR ELEVATION TO LESSEN THE iMPACT ON THE EXISTING.
THE VISUAL IMPACT IS MINIMAL TO THE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE WITH NO
IMPACT TO THE STREETS CAPE AND PUBLIC VIEW. THE PROPOSED DESIGN WILL HAVE NO INFLUENCE ON
THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
1020 SNOW MASS CREEK ROAD
SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654
(970) 927-4327
--
~(Q
APRIL 17, 19~
AMY AMITON
HISTORICAL PRESERVATION OFFICER
ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
130 SOUTH GALENA STREET
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
REF: SUBMITTAL FOR
RELOCATION OF
EXISTING HOT TUB
~ZO t'!Il!>LAKE STREET
ASPEN, CO.81611
DEAR AMY,
THE FOLLOWING IS MY AUTHORIZATION OF JAMES M.COOK ASSOCIATES TO REPRESENT ME CONCERNING
THE REFERENCED PROJECT. THEIR ADDRESS IS AS FOLLOWS:
JAMES M. COOK ASSOCIATES
1020 SNOWMASS CREEK ROAD
SNOWMASS, COLORADO 81654
( 970) 927 - 4327
MY MAILING ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER ARE:
RONNIE MARSHALL
302 LAKE STREET
ASPEN, CO 81611
(970) 925 - 5551
I TRUST THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO PROCEED WITH THE APPLICATION.
RONNIE MARSHALL
,
,
- \
-\
-
.'
.
. .. .......'
~.......... .
....c.....
." .
,
,
.. I.' &ALLAH LAKE BLUFF ESA
.
. -
approxtaate loc~tioD ~f 7850' elevation
.
100' wide ESA
L
\
"
\
....,.CtW~.u~ .--,
illJ] UllIDIIJ . [[]]JJill]
IIill. ~ nmmIl . llJI]]]]]
Dm~ rmn'rrmmn -.;
IIID . IllJI[l] ~ IIllHIIill ITIIIlIill ITIIIIIID.:
... uu.P n
;am [IUITIIh rnmrrn ITIWIlID aJJIDII] .~amurn" m:n .
nm [ill[!]' rn:mrm ~ ITITIillIJ ~ llIIIlTIlc; []]]lli] c lIDIIIIll c
I
..~
.1 ......
r-
. _ . . , . . . . . .. 11[ 1 I . , I I' -,
. ,
_ J;
_ _.1
w. M.f:C~ ~
It.
- .'_.......;.:.........
STEWART Tl11-E OF ASPEN INC.
OWNERSlIlP AND ENCUMBRANCE REPORT
Order No.: 00022648
PREPARED FOR: 9999900
STEWART TIILE OF ASPEN, lNC.
HEREBY CERTIFIES fmm a search of the books In thi.. ofice that title to:
Parcel I, MARSHALL LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat thereof recorded January
26, 1988 in Plat Book 20 at Page 54.
COUNTY OF PITIUN, STATK OF COLORADO
situated In the County of Pitkin. State of Colorado. appears to be vested in the name of'
RONNIE MARSHALL
and that the above de..cribed property appear.. to be ..ubject to the following lien..:
1. Lis pendens, Case No. 90CV274, District Court, pitkin county entitled Jon K.
Dyer d/b/a Dyer Construction Co., Plaintiff vs Ronnie Harshall, Benjamin
Ferris, E. W. Young, Aspen savings and Loan Association, pitkin county Bank and
Trust, and the Public Trustee of pitkin county, Colorado, Defendant, recorded
December 26, 1990 in Book 636 at Page 515 as Reception No. 329064.
2. A Deed of Trust dated December 6, 1993, executed by Ronnie Harshall, to the
Public Trustee of Pitkin county, to secure an indebtedness of $200,000.00, in
favor of FBS Hortgage corporation, a Nevada corporation, recorded December 10,
1993 In Book 734 at Page 531 as Reception No. 364420.
NOTE: The beneficial interest under said Deed of Trust was assigned of record
to capstead Inc. by FSB Mortgage corporation, a Nevada Corporation recorded
November 28, 1994 in Book 768 at Page 134 as Reception No. 376743.
EXCEPT any and aU taxes and assessments.
EXCEPT all easements, right.' of way. rrstrlctions and reservations of record.
This report does not reflect any of the folloa711g matters:
(I) Bankruptcies which. from date of adjudication of the most recent bankruptcies. antedate the report by more than
fourteen (/4) year...
(2) Suits andjudgments which, from date of entry. antedate the report by more than sel'en (7) years or until the
governing statue of limitations has expired. whichever is the longer period,
(3) Unpaid tax liens which, from date of payment. antedate the report by more than sel'en years.
Although we belielY! thefacUi stated are true. this letter Is not to be construed as on abstract a/title, nor an opinion
oftltlt'. nor a guaranty a/title. and it is understood and agreed that Stewart 7'tle of A.fpen. Inc.. neither assumes,
nor will be charged with any fir/onelal obligation or liability whatever on any statement contained herein.
Dated:
April
1996 at 7:30 A.H.
. at Aspen. Colorado
STEWART TITLE OF ASPEN. INC.
OWNERSHIP AND ENCUMBRANCE REPORT
Order No.: 00022648
PREPARED FOR: 9999900
S1EWART 11TLE OF ASPEN, INe.
HEREBY CER11FIESfrom a search of the books in this ofice that title to:
Parcel I, MARSHALL LOT SPLIT, according to the Plat thereof recorded January
26, 1988 in Plat Book 20 at Page 54.
COUNTY OF PITKIN, STATE OF COLORADO
situated in the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado, appears to be vested in the name of:
RONNIE MARSHALL
and that the above described property appears to be subject to the following liens:
1.
Lis Pendens, Case No. 90CV274, District Court, Pitkin County entitled Jon K.
Dyer d/b/a Dyer Construction Co., Plaintiff vs Ronnie Marshall, Benjamin
Ferris, E. W. Young, Aspen Savings and Loan Association, Pitkin County Bank and
Trust, and the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, Colorado, Defendant, recorded
December 26, 1990 in Book 636 at Page 515 as Reception No. 329064.
2.
i .
A Deed of Trust dated December 6, 1993, executed by Ronn~e Marshall, to the
Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an indebtedness of $200,000.00, in
favor of FBS Mortgage Corporation, a Nevada Corporation, recorded December 10,
1993 in Book 734 at Page 531 as Reception No. 364420.
NOTE: The beneficial interest under said Deed of Trust was assigned of record
to Capstead Inc. by FSB Mortgage Corporation, a Nevada Corporation recorded
November 28, 1994 in Book 768 at Page 134 as Reception No. 376743.
EXCEPT any and all taxes and assessments.
EXCEPT all easements, rights of way, restrictions and reservations of record.
This report does not reflect any of the following matters:
(1) Bankruptcies which, from date of adjudication of the most recent bankruptcies, antedate the report by more than
fourteen (14) years.
(2) Suits and judgments which, from date of entry, antedate the report by more than seven (7) years or until the
governing statue of limitations has expired, whichever is the longer period.
(3) Unpaid tax liens which, from date of payment, antedate the report by more than seven years.
Although we believe the facts stated are true, this letter is not to be construed as an abstract of title, nor an opinion
of title, nor a guaranty of title, and it is understood and agreed that Stewart ntle of Aspen, Inc., neither asswnes,
nor will be charged with any financial obligation or liability whatever on any statement contained herein.
Dated:
April 04, 1996 at 7:30 A.M.
, at Aspen, Colorado
By:
Authorized Signatur
~f-
~~
~~
f-I
IU~
~ijj
O~
n
\)
UJ
C\
~
Z
LL
o
UJ
~
1lI
C)
I
\!)
Z
~
~
lL.
~
\!)
z
lii
~
~ Z
III ()
P ~ l-
II ~ \)0
wo
dl~
_u
ii:l
-,
Ifl~
.00
. OSt>
~
~
Z
~
\!)
\!)
z
lii
~
f-
lU
~
IL
o
~ ~
o
z
:~ L. ;~:.~':/t:;;::,,~
,.f)()"v"Q"O(:I?"~;,;:,,
~,/S't: OO{i~~
'. 0") ~_~~~
'~-::,\:>, ~ ..;~B'I
PO<",I.-/,-.~,J"r .eoe~,."'$'
''';;;.. v;' 0: o-:oooeo~:\.~ .;;,~-...::.
'~~:I/. !::J POn \~\\\"
'l,ii/llill:l:llh\\\\\\
~
I
Ifl
ill
Il1z
-!w
ILt
F>
h~
IIfl
~~
~~
lL
- ~
~ ~ .
~ III
~
I
't
I
;-
9
ill
9
;n
LL -----------1
OlL I
J8~ I d I
-i---S!~-----l~-
-- ~Fijj ,- I---.J
I 20:::1 1
\ ii!IJ: / LJ
\. /
" ./
---
N
[).---
____ .---r
----
----
----
----
----
C\
~~~
91
1
~
~~~
91
1,,->
Z
1f::~lL
I~~~
I!)
=>
()
:r
I!)
z
l-
I!)
...I
~
ifi
Ii~::
<g~
X III ell
~i~'
~~~
z
I!)
I!)
~
n..
~
I!)
~
~ I!l .
~ ~
"I
"
~
,
...
~
~
'"
~ll I I ~
~~ I ~~ I ~~;:
1 I t='" .( ..
~-1-~~~;U~~~~~--l-{~- ~"'3
I ~~~ _ _-1 ~~ .
--I Io;;! I I I ()1I~
\ O'n I LJ lt~~
'/ ~
" ./
----~
I I
91
I
>l)
~~
91
I",
:~~~
z
Ii!
, ,.
~
~ ~ ~
~
z
'00
. ~,.
l-
Z
. ~
~ ~
~
~
oil
~
z
II ~
~
!;: z
~ ~ ~
OJ OJ
Ii ~
oil
oil
~
;:\
:Q
~ltl
mZ
N-
.~
"lz
-!w
~ ~ ~~
x ~ ~~
oil oil
z z l
Iii Iii x
.z
~ ~ ~~
, .
i:"i
:;~ . i
~~M \--- .~.
~~ It i ~
.~'iit~ g,;"" :!t- '
":)~ ::> <J ~~
! ~ D 0~ . I <f (!
. ~ I!) f\ ~f.\~
~ ~ 0 f!~'~ [.~(!{
L .IE' <(-l~ . ~~.w
~(f0' ~..~
~~~( j
,_H
~~
~\,
:J
~ C>
"- ~&
~~
~
~
.~
,
i
.~~
.~ l:-
f) ~
~ ll:l
~ ~1
J, ..
.f(
~
1&
~~
- m~ .
1 ^
~ ,-,
.~ :.
.'
'.'
,I : 1
Ill' 1
I~l' ~
' !,J
I I'" ~
I ,~..
I ~i~ Q
Ilh ~'" ~
[~~~~ 6
II~~~~ ~
~~~i~ f5
W'.~I~*ll. ~
\I i I .
i
. f
;
:
!
I!! i
I!: I
"
'I! I
I t, I
:11'; I
~I.I!
" . I
~ ~ I'
r :
I "'
.i1R1
i: \-!
I. .
~ ~ '
. 'I '
~~ . ~If;( l7 " ",' ial ~
~ 1\I\!lIz: iii
OJ I :!3~ \\l2
,~ ~ . '. 'lcl!~ j!!~
i, -~ ~1, :-j) I~ f1!
; t. 11: ~
, ..
, I ~
II
~
!
-
\-0
/
/
~ /
~ I
~ I
~
~~I
~~I
~
. ':t-
I
I
~
n
....l
\JI
'1;
\---
(\-- ~
'"
l-I
!
'. ,
.. .
::. ': J
.....
I.' , r '.
1 ,'-'j iii, / ,': ,
J.)'. ,
.1 , I ~
.~: ,\tr I. J I I jo
."cr. -t ,
"~/', -., I . I
.; ":.' ,}
. ,
( . .
,
" . I
.
i "
\!\ . I
,
P , .
,
. I
.
,
. " " ..,\;
( ".
""', . .
,llj. j I
"I I ,
: j'
"iID,,, .
. I
't"l"
:.~.: ,:.
[
, .
'. .
.~.'~J~' ~." , I , \
. r, I Q i
"1':," , 'I' .~, '
-.. I, ..:; :~ I
;, ~ ill
:'.'r., I I (} tit
:l ''''3t
.~ : I I i~j~~
, ,
,
,
III
~ ~
(\~
~~
~ IF-
:1 ~
lu)~
:" ~~~
11 ~~ ~
I'J ~1. ~
Iz~~
~~I'l
I
~
p
~
8
~
~
~
C\
-,
~ "
~~~
'---t~
~~~I .
fI : i IIIII1
r'....
Exhibit B
DISTRICT COURT,PITKIN, STATE OF
COLORAD: ~@ ~ It 1?l~ ~
~ W'" - .L\~j3 .
l j'\l j.
civil Action No. 92 CV 47
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
_-('s
_0.-
(;a. .
'OFFICE
RONNIE MARSHALL;
PLAINTIFF
vs,
THE CITY OF ASPEN, and THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION,
DEFENDANTS
This matter came before the Court on the Complaint of the
Plaintiff seeking review of an adverse decision of the Aspen
Planning and zoning commission. The record below was certified to
this Court, and the parties have filed their briefs as required by
Rllle 106 (a)(4). Court has considered the briefs and the record of
the proceedings' below.
The Defendants also filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment. Based on the record as supplemented by the
",,__~~r:als on tile r-lL ':m fOL -.mnmary Judgment, the Court issues the
following Order.
I_ STANDARD FOR REVIEW
In reviewing a land use decision of an agency under
C.R.C.P.I06 (a)(4), the Court is limited to the matters contained
in the record of the proceeding before that agency, Fedder v.
McCurdy, 768 P.2d 711 ( Colo. App. 1988).
Where the land use
agency exceeds its jurisdiction or abuses its discretion, this
Court must set aside the agency's order. The court looks to the
entire record and must uphold the land use decision unless there is
no competent evidence to support it, Fedder, SUDra; King's Mill
Homeowners Ass'n v. Westminster, 192 Colo. 305, 557 P.2d 1186
.,.,.....
Marshall v. Asp~n
April 29, 1993
Page 2
(1976), so that the decision is devoid of evidentiary support and
therefore arbitrary and capricious, Platte River. Env. Cons. Organ.
Inc. v. Hat'l Hpg Farms, 804 P. 2d 290 (Colo. App. 1990).
This
Court must also consider whether the land use agency misconstrued
or misapplied the law; and if there is a reasonable basis for its
application of the law, the agency's decision will not be set aside
on that basis, Lee v. state Board of Dental Examiners, 654 P.2d 839
(Colo. 1982).
The City has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court
will decide the case on the merits under Rule 106 (a)(4), reviewing
the entire record below. A decision on the merits will include a
decision on the issues raised in the Motion for Summary Judgment.
The city seeks a mandatory injunction directing the Plaintiff to
bring her property into compliance with the City Code, and the
Plaintiff seeks. an injunction prohibiting the City from enforcing
the Hallam Lake ESA against her.
II_
BASIC FINDINGS
1. The plaintiff, a resident of Aspen, Colorado, owns real
property located at 320 Lake Avenue, Aspen, Colorado.
2. The Plaintiff caused to be built a hot tub and deck at the
rear of her property in the Spring of 1990. She did not obtain
a building permit, electrical permit, plumbing permit, zoning
permi t, or land use development approval as required by
various portions of the Aspen City Code. Nor did she obtain
the required inspections.
~,.
,"'''^"''
Marshall v. Aspen
April 29, 1993
Page 3
3. On May 29,' 1990, the City of Aspen ("city") red-tagged the
Plaintiff's hot tub.
4. The Plaintiff's property lies wi thin the Historic Preservation
District and is a designated historic landmark.
Under the
City Code, a minor development approval for the construction
of the spa and deck was required. The Historic Preservation
Committee was the agency authorized to issue that permit. The
Plaintiff :did not obtain this Committee's approval before
construction of the spa and deck
5. On June 14, 1990, the Plaintiff applied for a building permit
to legitimize the construction of the hot tub.
6. On July 19, 1990, the city advertized public notice of a
hearing on the Hallam Lake ESA Ordinance before the P&Z. This
ordinance created the Hallam lake Environmentally sensitive
Area ("ESA"), and, among other things, limited development on
the hillside above Hallam Lake, and prohibits any development
below the top of the slope.
7. On August 7, 1990, the Planning and Zoning commission ("P&Z")
held the public hearing on the Hallam Lake ESA ordinance.
8. On August 22, 1990, the Plaintiff obtained approval for the
spa and deck from the Historic Preservation Committee, subject
to herr providing screening landscaping.
9. On October 2, 1990, the P&Z approved the Hallam Lake ESA
Ordinance. ,
10. On October 22, 1990, the City Council passed the Hallam lake
r'"
Marshall v. Aspen
April 29, 1993
Page 4
,
ESA ordinance on first reading, and on November 12, 1990, gave
final adoption to the ordinance. Topographically, a portion of
the Plaint~ff's hot tub and deck is located below the top of
the slope. The ESA ordinance subjects certain development to
a special review process, and the spa and deck lie within the
area subject to that special review process.
11. On November 15, 1990, the plaintiff's landscaping for
screening 'was accepted as complying with the Historic
Preservation Committee standards.
12. On March 8, 1991, the Plaintiff applied for a zoning variance
to the Board of Adjustment to legitimize the read yard setback
violation created by the hot tub structure.
13. On June 6, 1991, the board of Adjustment granted her a
variance, subject to her compliance with the Hallam Lake ESA.
The motion to grant the variance included the language that
the plaintiff "go back and meet the building codes with
respect to'rai1ings and the ESA and HPC for that railing to
ascertain if it is appropriate."
14. On October 30, 1991, the Plaintiff filed for approval under
the Hallam Lake ESA.
15. On December 17, 1991, the P&Z denied the Hallam Lake ESA
application, and reaffirmed its decision on January 21, 1992.
16. The Plaint~ff has never obtained the necessary permits under
the City Code for the construction and use of the hot tub and
deck.
0...-,..... '..
"" ."'-" .....
_0_ _ _ __ .~.-_.._----_..---:.-.-..l.....~o,____
..........
Marshall v. Aspen
April 29, 1993
Page 5
17. The Plaintiff has not obtained vested rights to construct or
use the hot tub and deck.
18. The City is not estopped from enforcing the ESA ordinance and
,
other portions of its Code and requiring the removal of the
hot tub and deck.
19. The City is entitled to injunctive relief.
II_
DISCUSSION
I. SEOUENCE OF APPLICATIONS AND ORDINANCE
The City Code required the Plaintiff to comply with an
assortment of regulations and permit requirements. As of the date
of construction of the spa and deck, the Plaintiff had to get a
building permit, electrical permit, plumbing permit, zoning permit,
and a land use development approval as required by various portions
of the Aspen city Code. She failed to do so, and the project was
almost completed without either the permits or the requisite
inspections.
The specific location she chose triggered another
permi t requirement.
The structure intruded into the rear yard
setback in violation of the City Code.
Therefore, she needed
another permit, a variance from the strict application of the Code.
until she obtained this variance permit, the project was not
lawful.
She did not apply for a variance until March 8, 1991.
This was about one hundred-sixteen days after the passage of the
ESA ordinance.
When she applied for the variance, the ESA
ordinance was in full force and effect. Here application for and
the decision on the variance came well after the passage of the ESA
______ __ ~_._.__...;.C__~.~__
........
Marshall v. Aspen
April 29, 1993
Page 6
ordinance. In doing so, she subjected herself to its requirements.
She, like other~, was obligated to comply with its terms. Thus,
because of the dates of passage of the ESA ordinance and her
variance application, the ESA ordinance applies, and the Defendants
lawfully may require the Plaintiff to conform to its provisions.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff is not entitled to relief under her
Complaint.
II _ VESTED RIGHTS
The Plaintiff argues that her actions created for her vested
rights so that she was not subject to the ESA ordinance. First,
her construction of the hot tub and deck in the Spring of 1990 did
not vest her with anything; it was illegal from the outset. She
tacitly admitted this by applying after the fact for City approvals
to legitimatize it. Second, under Colorado's interpretation of the
pending ordinance doctrine, the passage of the ESA ordinance during
the pendency of the building permit proceedings did not vest the
Plaintiff with any rights. In Crittenden v. Hasser, 585 P.2d 929
(Colo. App. 1978), the Court held:
This authority to enact a zoning resolution,
and thereby restrict the use of property,
exists even though an application for a
license involving that use ins pending; the
only . proviso being the Board had not
reasonably or arbitrarily refused or delayed
the issuance of the license.
In Gramiger v. County of Pitkin, 794 P.2d 1045 (Colo. App.
1989), the Court interpreted Crittenden to mean that if the
amending ordinance is adopted before the normal processing of the
application is completed, the new ordinance may apply. Here, the
-----".,-~.~-_.....'"""'""~.......-"'-,._~
Marshall v. Aspen
April 29, 1993
Page 7
passage of the ESA ordinance preceded the normal completion of the
Plaintiff's building permit application. It preceded the filing of
the variance request. Thus, under applicable precedent, the timing
of the filing of the application and the passage of the ESA
ordinance does not generate for the Plaintiff any rights, vested or
otherwise,
to
retain
the
hot
tub
and
deck.
Third, under the vested property rights statute, C.R.S. 9 24-68-
101, et. seq., she did not obtain any approval or conditional
approval of a site specific development plan before the enactment
of the ESA ordinance, C.R.S. 9 24-68-103 (1).
Fourth, the ESA
ordinance by its terms provided that ---
Any development or proposed development in the
Hallam Lake Bluff ESA Overly (sic) District
not vested in accordance with law prior to the
effective date of this ordinance shall comply
wi th the terms and provisions of the Hallam
Lake Bluff ESA development standards as
adopted pursuant to this ordinance.
Clearly, the terms of the ordinance shut out the possibility of
creating rights'from pending, unapproved applications.
Plaintiff points to the language of 9 24-l-l04(B)(3) of the City
Code which states ---
The provisions of this chapter and any
amendments hereto shall not affect the review
of any development application or building
permit application lawfully submitted prior to
the effective date of this chapter pursuant to
the provisions of the zoning and subdivision
regulations in effect immediately prior to the
effective date of this chapter.
To apply, the building permit application must precede the
--
Marshall v. Aspen
April 29, 1993 '
Page 8
effective date "of this chapter."
This provision clearly deals
with the time period when the whole chapter was being introduced,
which occurred well before the Plaintiff's building permit here.
This language does not apply to later amendments to portions of the
chapter's text from time to time. Thus, this portion of the Code
does not prohibit the application of the ESA ordinance to the
pending building application of the Plaintiff.
The Court concludes that the Plaintiff did not obtain any
vested rights.
III. RELIANCE
The Plaintiff argues that she receives vested rights from
substantial steps in reliance on her penai t application. She
argues that her construction "is virtually complete," and that she
had "done all she can do to acquire a vested right." ( Brief, p.
5). One must separate out what she did without a semblance of
legality, and that is the virtual completion of the project before
being red-tagged for having no permits. This was clearly illegal
,
acti vi ty, and ;'ot the basis for vesting rights.
What she did
afterwards was installing about $1,000 worth of landscaping, file
applications an~ other paperwork, and go to meetings. The Plaintiff
had a project involving a heating system rehab which had not been
done since the 1940's, foundation work, and the hot tub (Record, 6,
19). In the context of all that went into the unlawful hot tub
project, there is a failure of proof by the Plaintiff that the
landscaping was a substantial item. similarly, there is a failure
-
....h....
Marshall v. Aspen
April 29, 1993
Page 9
of proof that the Plaintiff's purported actions in reliance were
reasonable. There is nothing the City or its representatives said
of did that would form the basis for one reasonably to expect that
the hot tub and deck would be legalized and that money and effort
should be spend ahead of time presupposing that outcome.
The Plaintiff argues further that participating in the land
use hearings an,d pursuing a permit vests her with rights. The
argument implies that mere participation in the hearing process
after a code violation equals success, and that a permit denial
cannot occur when one expends time and effort to seek the permit.
There is a vast difference between seeking a land use or building
permi t and actually acquiring one; Plaintiff's argument would
eradicate that difference.
The Court concludes that the
Plaintiff's pursuit of the permits does not create any rights in
her favor to retain the hot tub and deck.
.IV. ESTOPPEL
Viewing tr:e ac;tions of the City and those acting on its
behalf, the Court does not find any actions of the City or the P&Z
which estop the City from enforcing the ESA ordinance.
In the
context of the Plaintiff's initial illegally constructing the hot
tub and deck, there is less justification for application of
estoppel.
Defendants argue that Lehman v. Louisville. 16 Brief
Times Reporter 1805 (Colo. App. 1992) bars the Plaintiff's estoppel
claims by application of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act.
That case is now on certiorari.
It dealt with a tort claim for
.t"""
Marshall v. Aspen
April 29, 1993
Page 10
damages and thus subject to the specific pOlicies of the Act which
have little apparent application to a land use dispute. The word
estoppel has many applications and meanings. Nothing in the Lehman
indicates that the rules for tort claims against a municipality
should apply in the Rule 106(a)(4) dispute over the application of
a land use ordinance or building code. Sovereign immunity simply is
not a consideration here.
Taken as a 'whole and in context with one another, the City's
actions were an orderly application of its various, albeit complex,
interrelated ordinances. Nothing was done to lead the Plaintiff
reasonably to Conclude that she would be treated in any manner
other than that mandated by the City Code. Nor is there any proof
,
that the City Code was applied differently to her situation. The
City did not represent to the Plaintiff that its ordinances would
not be enforced or that she would be immune from the application of
the ESA ordinance.
A municipality may be estopped when its
representative performs an action or makes a statement on which the
citizen reasonably relies and the municipality then changes its
posi tion to the 'landowner's detriment, see, e. g ., P.W. Investments,
Inc. v_ city of Westminster, 665 P.2d 1365 (Colo. 1982). Here, the
City did nothing to induce the Plaintiff to conclude the ESA
ordinance would not apply to her. To the extent she interpreted the
City's actions and concluded it would not, her reliance was not
reasonable in light of the circumstances.
v. MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
,....,
.~.. ,-
,
Marshall v. Aspen
April 29, 1993
Page 11
the same issues inherent in the RUle 106(a)(4) procedure. The
The Plaintiff moved for summary jUdgment, arguing primarily
precise issues in the Motion for Summary jUdgment are whether the
ci ty is entitled to an injunction that the Defendant bring her
property into sompliance with City Code and whether the Plaintiff
is entitled to' an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the
Code against her on the basis of estoppel.
Summary jUdgment is a drastic remedy, and will be granted only
where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, Kral v.
American Hardware Mut. Ins. Co., 784 P.2d 759 (Colo., 1989),
Ridgeway v. Kiowa School Dist. C-2, 794 P.2d 1020 (COlo., 1989).
Even where the,facts are not controverted, if reasonable persons
could reach different conclusions or draw different inferences from
them, summary judgment cannot be granted, Halsted v. Peterson, 797
P.2d 801 (Colo'. App., 1990).
The party opposing the motion is
entitled to all favorable inferences which may reasonably be drawn
from the evidence, Halsted v. Peterson. SUDra. The movant has the
burden of establishing the lack of a triable factual issue, and
"all doubts as to the existence of such an issue must be resolved
against the moving party." CUng La v. State Farm Auto. Ins. Co..
830 p.2d 1007 (COlo. 1992), Churchey v_ Adolph Coors. Co., 759 P.2d
1336, 1340 (Colo. 1988).
The Plaintiff used the Summary Judgment Motion procedure as a
vehicle to attempt to create factual issues. However, as discussed
above on the Rule 106 (a) (4) issues, as a matter of law, the
....'.......
I
Marshall v. Aspen
April 29, 1993
Page 12
"
Defendant never acquired vested rights nor was the City estopped to
proceed. The Summary Judgment arguments do not expand the legal or
factual issues on these points.
Based on the record certified under Rule 106 (a)(4) and the
affidavits submitted on the Summary Judgment issues,
the Court
concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact
concerning any of the issues raised by the Motion. The city is not
estopped. The record is clear as to when the City and the P&Z
acted, what their decisions were, what the Plaintiff said and did,
and what the effects of the Defendants' formal actions were.
The Defendant city is entitled to injunctive relief, the
plaintiff is not.
IV_
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that ---
a) Nei therDefendant has exceeded its jurisdiction or
abused its discretion;
b) The actions of the Defendant in denying the permit
applications of the plaintiff were lawful;
c) The Plaintiff had not gained any vested or other rights
entitling her to construct the hot tub and deck as has been
done, nor is the city estopped to enforce its Code and the ESA
ordinance;
d) The plaintiff stands in violation of the City Code, the
city has no plain, adequate, and speedy remedy at law, and the
city is entitled to injunctive relief;
e) The Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief.
Therefore, the Court ORDERS:
1) The plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed, with costs
to the Defendants;
2) The plaintiff shall cease using, immediately and
permanently, the hot tub and deck and shall remove it within
sixty days of this Order failing which the city is authorized
to enter the Plaintiff's premises and remove the hot tub and
deck. If the City does so, it shall deliver the removed
c
Marshall v. Aspen
April 29, 1993
Page 13
pieces to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff shall pay the
City's out of pocket costs of removal plus 5% for overhead.
Dated: May 3, 1993
BY,YHE~~T . ~
~~~~- -
~~TER CRA~
DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a
Andrew Hecht and Edward Caswall on
of t~ foregoing on
- C;_~ .
REPORTER, )
--/
Exhibit C
Memorandum
TO: Bob Nevins, Community Development
FROM: Rebecca Schickling, Parks Department
DATE: May 28, 1996
RE: Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff Review
cc: Engineering Department
We have reviewed the application submitted for the relocation of the hot tub on the
Marshall property. There is one apple tree that is under code (5") that will be lost to the
hot tub relocation next to the house. No permit is required to remove this tree. However,
if any other trees are impacted or excavated around for this project, a tree permit should
be applied for.
There was no landscape plan with the application, however, after looking at the site and
meeting with Jim Cook, we discussed the use of a jute landscape netting infused with
seeds to revegetate the slope after removal of the deck. Hydroseeding would also be
acceptable for this area. Seed composition should be native species for this area.
Additionally, we would recommend planting a few choke cherry bushes (prunus virginia)
on the slope which is the predominant shrub on the hillside. The existing Junipers don't
appear to be very healthy, however, they are not dead and may be assisting with
stabilizing the bank. If the homeowner would like for the Junipers to remain, and ACES
has no objection to them, then the Parks Department has no objection to them remaining.
MEMORANDUM
To:
..B6b Nevins, Planner
Thru:
Nick Adeh, City Enginee~
Ross C. Soderstrom, Project Engineer jJJ:J.
May 28,1996
From:
Date:
Re:
Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff Review
(320 Lake Street, Aspen: Parcell, Marshall Lot Split, Aspen, CO)
(Formerly: Lots 10, II and the Northwesterly 1/2 of Lot 12, Block 103, Hallam's Addition to Aspen, CO)
After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit I have the following comments:
1. Plat Map: The preliminary improvement survey provided contains several technical surveying
deficiencies and insufficient detail to properly evaluate the required work. The primary of these are:
. Resolution of the conflicting boundary monumentation at the northeast comer of the property.
. Location of all trees of six (6) caliper inches or larger located from the existing porch and extending a
distance of ten (10) ft beyond the northeast property line for evaluation of impacts to existing trees governed
by City code. (A symbol for both conifer and deciduous trees appears in the plat legend although no trees
are shown on the survey.)
. Clarification and descriptions of the potential encroachments along the southeast property line created by
the fence and "overhang" from the adjacent property to the southeast.
. Location of the rear set-back line as shown on the "Marshall Lot Split" plat. Location of the new set-
back line based upon the existing, restored, or court decision regarding determination of the top of bank.
. Field and record dimensions of the parcel. Resolution of differences and discrepancies.
2. Spa Drainage: We will need to receive a building plan, plumbing plan or written statement
from the applicant explaining how and where the discharge water from the spa will be disposed. In
particular, water drained or discharged from the spa may not be released over the edge of the bluff. If it is
discharged to a drywell on the property, we will need a soils report from a licensed geotechnical engineer
and a detail of the drywell design for review.
3. Site Grading: Refer to the separate comments from the Parks Dept. regarding site grading and
landscaping. As needed, prepare a site grading plan for review.
Address future correspondence regarding this application directly to myself at 920-5087, Aspen Engineering
Dept.
DRCM1296.DOC
Sections:
26.68.010
26.68.020
26.68.030
26.68.040
26.68.050
26.68.060
26.68.070
26.68.080
26.68.090
,
26.68.010
Exhibit 0
Chapter 26.68
DEVELOPMENT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS (ESA)
Purpose.
Authority.
8040 green line review.
Stream margin.
Mountain view plane review.
Hallam Lake Bluff review.
Procedure for approval of development in ESA.
Application.'
Conditions.
26.68.010 Purpose.
Certain land areas within the city are of particular eCOlogical. environmental. architectural or scenic
significance and all development within such areas shall be subject to special review procedures and standards
as set tonh in this Chapter 26.68. These areas shall be known as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) and
shall include the following:
A. ~040 Greenline. Areas located at or above S040 feet mean sea level (the 8040 Greenline) and including
that area extending one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 Greenline. Development in these areas shall
be subject to heightened review so as to reduce impacts on the naruraI watershed and surface runoff. minimize
air pollution, reduce the potential for avalanche. unstable slope. rock fall and mud slide. and aid in the transition
of agricultural and forestry land uses to urban uses. Review shall funher ensure the availability of utilities
and access to any development and that distUrbance to existing terrain and natural land features be kept to
a minimum.
B. Stream margins. Areas located within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, from the high
water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams. or within the one-hundred-yearfloodplain where
it extends one hundred (100) feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams,
or within a flood hazard area (stream margin). Development in these areas shall be subject to heightened review
so as to reduce and prevent property loss by 1100d while ensuring the naruraI and unimpeded flow of watercouISeS.
Review shall encourage development and land uses that preserve and protect existing watercourses as important
natural features.
C. Mountain view planes. Designated mOWltain view planes as set toIth in Section 26.68.050. Development
in these areas shall be subject to heightened review so as to protect mountain views from obstruction. strengthen
the environmental and aesthetic character of the city, maintain property values. and enhance the city's tourist
industry by maintaining the city's heritage as a mountain community.
D. Hallam Lake Buff. That bluff area running approximately on a nonh-south axis bordering and/or
overlooking the Aspen Center for Enviromnental Studies nature preserve and bounded on the east by the 7850-foot
mean sea level elevation line and extending one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally, up slope and there
tenninating, and bounded on the nonh by the southeast lot line of Lot 7 A of the Aspen Company Subdivision.
and on the south by the centerline of West Francis Street. Development in this area shall be subject to heightened
review so as to reduce noise and visual impacts on the nature preserve. protect against slope erosion and landslide.
595
(Aspen 10/95)
1_ ..:.: _
26.68.010
minimize impacts on surface runoff. maintain views to and from the nature preserve, and ensure the aesthetic
and historical integrity of Hallam Lake and the nature preserve. (Ord. No. 71-1990, 9 5: Code 1971, 9 7-501)
26.68.020 Authority.
The commission, in accon1ance with the procedures. standards and limiwions of this chapter. shall approve.
approve with conditions. or disapprove a development application for development in an environmentally
sensitive area (ESA). (Code 1971, 9 7-502)
16..MJ..~6 &tl~ glt:t:llune I cyjcn.
A. Applicability. The provisions of 8040 greenline review shall apply to all development located at
or above 8040 feet above mean sea level (the 8040 greenline) in the City of Aspen. and all development within
one hundred fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline. unless exempted pllISUant to Section 26.68.030 (B).
B. Exemption. The expansion. remodeling or reconstruction of an existing development shall be exempt
from 8040 greenline review if the following standards are met:
1. The development does not add more than ten (10) percent to the floor area of the existing strucmre
or increase the total amount of square footage of areas of the struCture which are exempt from floor area
calculations by more than twenty-five (25) percent; and
2. The development does not require the removal of any tree for whiCh a permit would be required
pursuant to Section 15.04.450 or the applicant receives a permit pursuant to said section; and
3. The development is located such that it is not affected by any geologic hazard and will not result
in increased erosion and sedimentation.
C. 8040 greenline review standards. No development shall be pe1lllitted at. above, or one hundred
fifty (150) feet below the 8040 greenline unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed
development complies with all requirements set fonh below.
I. The parcel on which the proposed development is to be located is suitable for development considering
its slope. ground stability characteristics. including mine subsidence and the possibility of mud flow, rock
falls and avalanche dangers. If the parcel is fOJll1d to contain hazardous or toxic soils, the applicant shall stabilize
and revegetate the soils. or, where necessary, cause them to be removed from the site to a location acceptable
to the city.
2. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the natural watershed. runoff.
drainage. soil erosion or have consequent effects oh water pollution.
3. The proposed development does not have a significant adverse affect on the air quality in the city.
4. The design and location of any proposed development, road. or trail is compatible with the terrain
on the parcel on which the proposed development is to be located.
5. Any grading will minimize, to the extent practicable. disturbance to the terrain, vegetation and natural
land featUres.
6. The placement and clustering of structures will minimize the need for roads, limit cutting and grading,
maintain open space, and preserve the mountain as a scenic resource.
7. Building height and bulk will be minimized and the struClllre will be designed to blend into the
open character of the mountain.
8. Sufficient water pressure and other utilities are available to service the proposed development
9. Adequate roads are available to serve the proposed development, and said roads can be properly
maintained.
(A<pm 10195)
596
-'"
26.68.050
base line which bear S. 300 41' 11" E. and S. 660 08' 59" W. respectively and which is above a plane which
passes through the reference point at an inclination of 20 50' 38n above horizontal.
6. Main Street View Plane. There is hereby established a view plane originating from Main Street
above which plane no land use or building shall project. The reference point beaIs N. 78. 22' 29" W. 92.35
feet from the southeasterly property comer of Block 79, Original Aspen Townsite. The reference base line
bears N. 75. 09' 11n W. 51.40 feet from the reference point Elevation of the reference point and reference
base line is 7,906.90 feet above mean sea level. The view plane is more particularly described as follows:
All that space which is within the projection of two (2) radial lines which bear S. 29" 10' 06n E. from the
reference point, and S. 80.29' 29" W. from the westerly terminus of the reference base line. and which is
also above a: plane which passes through the reference base line at an angle of inclination of 60 29' 20" above
horizontal.
B. Exemption. Development which shall be exempt from mountain view plane review shall include
the addition of any mechanical equipment to an existing development which protrudes into the view plane,
except for the following types of equipment
1. Satellite dish;
2. Elevator shaft; or
3. Any other piece of equipment whose height and mass are found to be of such significance in their
effect upon the designated view plane that their review pursuant to the standards of Section 26.68.050(C)
is required.
C. Mountain view plane review standards. No development shall be pexmitted within a mountain view
lane unless the commission makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all requirements
set forth below.
1. No mountain view plane is infringed upon. except as provided in Section 26.68.050(C)(2).
When any mountain view plane projects at such an angle so as to reduce the maximum allOwable building
height otherwise provided for in this title. development shall proceed according to the provisions of Chapter
26.84 as a planned unit development, so as to provide for maximum flexibility in building design with special
consideration to bulk and height, open space and pedestrian space. and similarly to permit variations in lot
area, lot width. yard and building height requirements, view plane height limitations.
The commission may exempt any developer from the above enumerated requirements whenever it is
determined that the view plane does not so effect the parcel as to require application ofPUD or that the effects
of the. view plane may be otherwise accommodated.
2. When any proposed development infringes upon a designated view plane, but is located in front
of another development which already blocks the same view plane, the commission shall consider whether
or not the proposed development will funher infringe upon the view plane. and the likelihood that redevelopment
of the adjacent structure will occur to re-open the view plane. In the event the proposed development does
not further infringe upon the view plane. and re-redevelopment to re-open the view plane cannot be anticipated,
the commission shall approve the development (Code 1971, !i 7-505)
26.68.060 Hallam Lake Bluff review.
A. Applicability. All development in that bluff area running approximately on a nonh-south axis bordering
and/or overlooking the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies nature preselVe and bounded on the east by
the 7850-foot mean sea level elevation line and extending one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally,
up slope and there terminating, and bounded on the north by the southeast lot line of Lot 7 A of the Aspen
Company Subdivision. and on the south by the centerline of West Francis Street. shall be subject to the review
standards as set forth in this section.
601
-------.,
~
B. Exemplian. The exterior expansion. remodeling or reconstruction of an existing SllUclure or develOJ:lllent,
or the removal of trees or shrubbery, shall be exempt from Hallam Lake Bluff review if the fOlloWing standards
are met.
1. The development tees place more than thiny (30) feet from the top of slope, or the development
is obscured from the rear slope by other struCtures as detennined by a site section provided pursuant to review
standard (C)(7) below.
C. Hallam Lake Bluff review standards. No development shaII be permitted within the Hallam Lake
Bh""ESA """""'-"""'._",,,,___,,, of"'""","",
requirements;
1. No deVelopment, excavation or fill, other than native vegetation planting, shaII ~ place below
the top of slope.
2. All development within the fifteen-foot setback: from the top of slope shall be at grade. Any ProPOsed
development not at grade within the fifteen-foot setback: must be approVed by special review pursuant to Section
26.64.040(D).
3. All development Outside the fifteen-foot setback: from top of slope shall not exceed a height delineated
by a line drawn at a fony-five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of slope. Height shaII be measured
and determined by the zoning officer utilizing that definition set forth at Section 26.04.100.
4. A landscape plan shaII be submitted with all development applications. Such plan shall include
native vegetative screening of no less than fifty (50) percent of the development as vieWed from the rear (slope)
of the parcel. All vegetative SCIeening shall be maintained in perpemity and shall be replaced with the same
or comParable material should it die.
5. All exterior lighting shall be low and downcast with no light(s) directed toward the natUre preserve
or located down the slope.
6. No fill material or debris shaII be placed on the face of the slope. Historic drainage pattems and
rates must be maintained. Pools or hot tubs cannot be drained down the slope.
7. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer shall be submitted
ShOWing all eXisting and proposed site elements. the top of slope, and pertinent elevations above sea level.
(Ord. No. 71-1990. ~ 6; Code 1971, ~ 7-506)
26.68..070 PrOcedure for apProval of deVelopment in ESA.
A development application for development in environmenraIly sensitiVe area (ESA), shall be revieWed
and recommended for approVal. approval with conditions, or disapproval by the planning director. and then
approVed, approved with conditions, or disapproved by the CommiSSion at a hearing held in accordance with
the procedUre established in Common Procedures. Otapter 26.52. A development appliCation for development
in an EnvironmenraIly Sensitive Area (ESA) may be consolidated with any other development application
pursuant to the requirements of Common Procedures, OIapter 26.52. (Ord. No. 71-1990, ~ 7: Code 1971.
~ 7-507)
26:68.080 Application.
The development appliCation for development in an environmenraIly sensitiVe area (ESA) shall inClUde
the fOllOWing;
A. The general appliCation infolIllation required in Section 26.52.030.
B. A plan of the proPOsed development, which shall depict at a minimum the follOWing infolIllation;
602
....'",-
26.68.080
1. The boundary of the property for which development is requested.
2. Existing and proposed improvements.
3. Significant narural fearures. including narural hazards and trees.
C. In addition to these minimum plan contenrs, the development plan submitted for development in
each rype of ESA shall also include the following:
1. For development subject to 8040 greenJine review, the plan shall depict:
a. Existing and proposed grades at two-foot contours, with five-foot intervals for grades over ten (10)
percent.
b.
c.
2.
Proposed elevations of the development.
A description of proposed construction techniques to be used.
For development subject to stream margin review, the plan shall depict:
The 1000year floodplain line and the high water line.
Existing and proposed grades at two-foot contours. with five-foot intervals for grades over ten (10)
a.
b.
percent.
c. When development is proposed in a special flood hazani area: Accurate elevations (in relation to
mean sea level) of the lowest floor. including basement, of all new or substantially improved suuctures: a
verification and recordation of the actual elevation in relation to mean sea level to which any suucture is
constructed; a demonstration that all new construction or substantial improvements will be anchored to prevent
flotation. collapse or lateral movement of any structUre to be constrUcted or improved; a demonstration that
the suucture will have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated to at least two (2) feet above the base
flood elevation. all as certified by a registered professional engineer or architect,
d. A description of proposed consuuction teclmiques to be used.
3. For development subject to mountain view plane. the plan shall depict:
a. Proposed elevations of the development, including any rooftop equipment and how it will be screened.
b. Photographs shal1 be submitted by the applicant which show the present improvemenrs which prottude
into or are in the vicinity of the view plane. The applicant shall graphically represent on the photographs how
the proposed improvements will appear in relation to existing improvements and views. (Old. No. 6-1989,
~ 9; Old. No. 71-1990, ~ 7: Code 1971, ~ 7-508)
26.68.090 Conditions.
The planning director may recommend and the commission may impose conditions to its approval of
development in an environmentally sensitive area (ESA), which includes but is not limited to means for:
A. Minimizing any adverse impact of the proposed development upon lands. including the use and
operation and the rype and intensity of activities which may be conducted;
B. Controlling the sequence or timing of proposed development. including when it must be commenced
and completed;
C. Controlling the duration of use of development and the time within which any sUUctures must be
removed;
D. Assuring that development is maintained properly in the future; or
E. Establishing a more detailed record by submission of drawings. maps, plats or specifications. (Ord.
No. 71-1990. ~ 7: Code 1971, ~ 7-509)
603
26.64.010
Sections:
26.64.010
26.64.020
26.64.030
26.64.040
26.64.050
26.64.060
26.64.070
26.64.080
26.64.090
Chapter 26.64
.r
SPECIAL REVIEW
Purpose.
Authority.
Applicability.
Review standards for special review.
Procedure for special review approval.
Application.
Conditions.
Modification of requirements.
Amendment of development order.
26.64.010 Purpose.
The purpose of special review is to ensure site specific review of dimensional requirements (Chapter
26.28), off-street parking requirements (Chapters 26.28 and 26.32), and all reductions in the dimensions of
utility/trash service areas (Chapter 26.28), and any development not at grade within fifteen (15) feet from
the top of slope in the Hallam Lake BluffESA (Chapter 26.68), in order to maintain the integrity of the city's
zone districts and the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses. (Ord. No. 71-1990,
g 3: Code 1971, ~ 7-401)
26.64.020 Authority.
The commission, in accordance with the procedures, standards and limitations of this chapter, shaI1 approve,
approve with conditions, or disapprove a development application for special review, after recommendation
by the planning director. (Code 1971, g 7-402)
26.64.030 Applicability.
Special review shall apply to all development in the City of Aspen designated for special review in ClIapters
26.28 and 26.32. (Code 1971, g 7-403)
26.64.040 Review standards for special review.
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the commission makes a determination
that the proposed development com lies with all standards and requirements set forth below.
A. Dimensional requirements. Whenever e dimensional requirements of a proposed development
are subject to special review, the development application shall only be approved if the following conditions
are met
1. The mass, height, density, configuration, amount of open space, landscaping and setbacks of the
proposed development are designed in a manner which is compatible with or enhances the cbaracter of surrounding
land uses and is consistent with the purposes of the underlying zone district
590
'-'.,'"-~_.>....-
,........
26.64.040
3. Off-street parking provided for multi-family dwelling units which do not share a common parldng
area is not required to have unobstructed access to a street or alley, but may consist of garage area, parking
strip or apron provided that the applicant demonstrates that adequate landscaping will be installed to reduce
the parldng's visual impact Developments consisting of three or more dwelling units shall install one (I)
planter buffer per three parking spaces. Planter buffers shall be a minimum often (10) feet long by two and
one-half (2-1/2) feet wide by two (2) feet high unless otherwise varied by the Commission. The location
and dimensions of the planters may also be varied by the Commission based on site specific circumstances
provided that no fewer than one (l) planter buffer is provided per three (3) off-street parldng spaces. Multi-family
projects using this provision shall access parking from the alley, if available.
C. UtiIity/trash service area. Whenever the special review is for reduction of the dimensions of a utility/trash
service area, the development application shall be approved only if:
1. There is a demonstration that given the nature of the potential uses of the building and its total
square footage, the utilityltrash service area proposed to be provided will be adequate.
2. Access to the utility/trash service area is adequate.
3. Measures are provided for enclosing trash bins and making them easily movable by trash personnel.
4. When appropriate, provisions for trash compaction are provided by the proposed development and
measures are taken to encourage trash compaction by other developments on the block.
5. The area for public utility placement and maintenance is adequate and safe for the placement of
utilities.
6. rovisions are inco rated to ensure the consOUction of the acces
D. Hallam Lake Bluff ESA encroachment into fifteen-foot setback from top of slope or height limit
Whenever a special review is for development above or below grade within the fifteen-foot setback from top
of slope as identified on a site specific section drawing or above the height limit established by the ESA, the
development application shall be approved only if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique condition exists on the site where strict adherence to the top of slope setback will create
an unwoIkable design problem.
2. Any intrnsion into the top of slope setback or height limit is minimized to the greatest extent possible.
3. Other parts of the structure or development on the site are located outside the top of slope setback
line or height limit to the greatest extent possible.
4. Landscape treattnent is increased to screen the structure or development in the setback from all
adjoining properties.
E. Subdivision design standards. Whenever a special review is for development which does not meet
the subdivision design standards of Section 26.88.040(C)(4), the development application shall be approved
only if the following conditions have been met:
1. A unique situation exists for the development where strict adherence to the subdivi~on design standards
.
would result in incompatibility with the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan, the existing, neighboring development
areas, and/or the goals of the community.
2. The applicant shall specify each design standard variation requested and provide justification for
each variation request, providing design recommendations by professional engineers as necessary. (Oni. No.
6-1989, ~ 9; Ord. No. 7-1989, ~ 2; Oni. No. 16-1989, ~ 3; Oni. No. 71-1990, ~ 4; Oni. No. 35-1992, ~ 2;
Ord. No. 4-1993, ~ 2; Oni No. 50-1994, ~ 2; Oni. No. 69-1995, ~ 2: Code 1971, ~ 74(4)
593
26.64.050
26.64.050 Procedure for special review approval. r
A development application for special review shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval .
with conditions, or disapproval by the planning director and then approved, approved with conditiollS, or
disapproved by the commission at a hearing held in accordance with the procedure established in Common
Procedures, Chapter 26.52. A development application for special review may be consolidated with any other
development application pursuant to the requirements of Common Procedures, Chapter 26.52. (Code 1971,
~ 7-405)
26.64.060 Application.
The development application for special review shall include the following:
A. The general application information required under Section 26.52.030.
B. A sketch plan showing the configuration of the development on the lot and those feanJres of the
site which are relevant to the special review application.
C. An analysis of the characteristics of similarly situated properties in the same zone district and of
neighboring parcels with respect to whether these properties comply with the dimensional, off-street parking
or trash/utility service area requirement which is subject to special review. (Code 1971, ~ 7-406)
26.64.070 Conditions.
The planning director may recommend, and the commission may impose, such conditions that are necessary
to ensure a proposed development subject to special review complies with the purposes of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, this chapter, and this title, including conditions to ensure the integrity of the city's zone
districts are maintained. and the proposed use is compatible with surrounding land uses. This includes but
is not limited to imposing conditions on size, bulk, location, open space, landscaping, lighting, signage, off-street
parking. 'and other design features. (Code 1971, g 7-407)
26.64.080 Modification of requirements.
If the dimensional requirements, off-street parking, signage, or reduction in access to utility/trash service
areas for a proposed development are expressly modified by a valid conditional use or other valid development
pennit or approval, the proposed development must comply with such modified requirements. (Code 1971,
~ 7-408)
26.64.090 Amendment of development order.
A. Insubstantial amendment. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for special
review may be authorized by the planning director. An insubstantial amendment shall be limited to teclmical
or engineering considerations first discovered dwing actual development which could not reasonably be anticipated
during the approval process. An insubstantial amendment shall include a change to the design of approved
off-street parking or to the configuration of a trasb/utiIity service area. An insubstantial amendment shall not
include:
1. Any increase in a dimensional requirement established by special review.
2. Any decrease in the number of off-street parldng spaces established by special review.
3. Any decrease in the size of a utility/trash service area established by special review.
4. Elimination of any represented feature, such as provision of a trash compactor or the number of
trash bins, which was approved by special review.
B. Other amendment Any other amendment shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures
of this chapter. (Code 1971, g 7-409)
594
ASPENIPITKIN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX (970) 920-5439
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City Attorney
City Engineer
Parks
FROM:
Bob Nevins, Planner
RE:
Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff Review
Parcel ill No. 2735-124-01-003
DATE:
May 20, 1996
Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Ronnie Marshall.
Please return your comments to me no later than May 24, 1996.
Thank you.
\So b
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Staff
John Ely, County Attorney
Susan Murphy, County Administration
John Worcester, City Attorney
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
FROM:
Rhonda Harris, Community Development Department
RE:
Work Schedule-Memos Due Week of May 30,1996
JUNE 18 - GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
AH Overlay (TM)
RuralIRemote Zone District Code Amendments (CH)
JUNE 18 - PITKIN PLANNING & ZONING
Records Lot Line Adjustment (LC)
Cote Ridgeline Review, Extension of Vest sed Rights & Caretaker Dwelling Unit (ES)
DeLoach Conceptual Review (FK) (cont. from 4/2)
JUNE 18 - ASPEN PLANNING & ZONING
Zupancis Subdivision (BN)
Schrager Conditional Use for ADU (SW)
706 W. Main Conditional Use for ADlJ(DM)
Aspen Club PUD Amendment (DM)
Howling Wolf Special Review - Trash Area Reduction (SW)
Marshall Hallam Lake ESA - Hot Tub Relocation (EN)
BOCC RESOLUTIONS/ORDINANCES OUTSTANDING:
Moore PUD/Subdivision Ord-2128/95 (TM)
Hidden Meadows - 3127/96 (FK)
Aspen Village - 4/23/96 (FK)
Elk Mountain Lodge - 4/22/96 (RM)
CITY P&Z RESOLUTIONS OUTSTANDING:
Hernandez ADU-2/6/96 (DM)
820 E. Cooper ADU-2/6/96 (AA)
ASPENIPITKIN PLANNING OFFICE
130 S. Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5090 FAX# (970) 920-5439
May 20, 1996
Jim Cook
1020 Snowmass Creek Road
Snowmass, CO 81654
Re: Marshall Hallam Lake Bluff Review
Case A32-96
Dear Jim,
The Planning Office has completed its preliminary review of the captioned application. We have
determined that this application is complete.
We have scheduled this application for review by the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission on
Tuesday, June 4, 1996 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 p.m. Should this date be inconvenient for you
please contact me within 3 working days of the date of this letter. After that the agenda date will be
considered final and changes to the schedule or tabling of the application will only be allowed for
unavoidable technical problems. The Friday before the meeting date, we will call to inform you
that a copy of the memo pertaining to the application is available at the Planning Office.
If you have any questions, please call the planner assigned to your case, Bob Nevins, at 920-5102.
Sincerely,
.../:' I 1../ ' .
/-:"y( f'l )/21&,_, .-/r;::;/l <-J
Rhonda Harris
Administrative Assistant
.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Aspen Historic Preservation Commission
THRU:
Stan Clauson, Community Development Director
FROM:
Amy Amidon, Historic Preservation Officer
RE:
320 Lake Avenue- Minor
DATE:
May 8, 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The applicant requests HPC approval to add a hot tub and extend
the existing deck on the site. The property is a historic landmark.
APPLICANT:
Ronnie Marshall, represented by Jim Cook.
lOCATION: 320 Lake Avenue, lot 1, Marshall lot Split, City and Townsite of
Aspen.
PROJECT SUMMARY AND REVIEW PROCESS: All development in an "H,"
Historic Overlay District, or development involving a historic landmark must meet
all four Development Review Standards found in Section 26.72.010(D) of the
Aspen land Use Code in order for HPC to grant approval.
1.
Standard: The proposed development is compatible in general design,
massing and volume, scale, and site plan with the designated historic
structures located on the parcel and with development on adjacent
parcels when the subject site is in an "H," Historic Overlay District or is
adjacent to a historic landmark....
Response: The proposal is to add a deck and hot tub behind the
existing house. The location of the hot tub is affected by the Hallam Lake
"Environmentally Sensitive Area" overlay, which requires development to
be set away from the edge of the slope. This issue will be reviewed by
the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The extended deck and hot tub will not be visible from the street and have
no direct physical or visual impact on the historic structure. The applicant
must provide an elevation of the proposed railing for review by staff and
monitor.
,,-.
.
2.
Standard: The proposed development reflects and is consistent with the
character of the neighborhood of the parcel proposed for development.
Response: The proposal has no impact on the character of the
neighborhood.
3.
Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not detract
from the historic significance of designated historic structures located on
the parcel proposed for development or on adjacent parcels.
Response: The proposed deck and hot tub do not impact the historic
significance of the designated structure. No demolition or direct
attachment to the historic house is necessary.
4.
Standard: The proposed development enhances or does not diminish
from the architectural character and integrity of a designated historic
structure or part thereof.
Response: There is no impact on the architectural character or integrity
of the historic structure.
ALTERNATIVES: The HPC may consider any of the following alternatives:
. Approve the Minor Development application as submitted.
. Approve the Minor Development application with conditions to be met prior to
issuance of a building permit.
. Table action to allow the applicant further time for restudy. (Specific
recommendations should be offered.)
. Deny Minor Development approval finding that the application does not meet
the Development Review Standards.
,'"",
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that HPC approve the minor
development application with the condition that an elevation of the railing be
submitted for review by staff and monitor.
RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve the minor development
application for 320 Lake Avenue with the condition that an elevation of the
proposed railing be submitted for review by staff and monitor."
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: