HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.sm.Sanders.1280 Red Butte Dr.A20-90 CASELOAD SUMMARY SHEET
City of Aspen
DATE RECEIVED: 3 19 90 PARCEL ID AND CASE NO.
DATE COMPLETE: 3 ?D TA F 3 F MEMBER:
20 -90
/A
PROJECT NAME: Sanders Stream Margin Review eg
Project Address: 1280 Red Butte Drive o I
Legal Address: Lot 1, Gaylord Subdivision
APPLICANT: Cheryl A. Sanders
Applicant Address:
REPRESENTATIVE: Sunny Vann. Vann Associates
Representative Address /Phone: 230 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen. CO 81611 5 -6958
PAID: YES NO AMOUNT: S870.00 NO. OF COPIES RECEIVED: 3
TYPE OF APPLICATION: 1 STEP: >< 2 STEP:
p / r f
P &Z Meeting Date O�A ll 0 PUBLIC HEARING: 0 NO
VESTED RIGHTS: E !NO/
CC Meeting Date PUBLIC HEARING: YES NO
VESTED RIGHTS: YES NO
Planning Director Approval: Paid:
Insubstantial Amendment or Exemption: Date:
REFERRALS:
City Attorney Mtn. Bell School District
City Engineer Parks Dept. Rocky Mtn Nat Gas
Housing Dir. Holy Cross State Hwy Dept(GW)
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: 3/a2/90 (0 INITIALS: 00.v,
FINAL ROUTING: DATE ROUTED: 11(1-/ '5 3 INITIAL: 1
City Atty _ City Engineer _ zoning Env. Health
Housing Other:
FILE STATUS AND LOCATION:
f"•
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE SANDERS STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
AND VESTING OF THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
Resolution No. 90-X
WHEREAS, Cheryl A. Sanders submitted for approval to the
Commission an application for Stream Margin Review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning staff recommended approval of the
Stream Margin Review with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Commission reviewed and approved by a 7 -0 vote
said Stream Margin Review on June 5, 1990; and
WHEREAS, Cheryl A. Sanders has requested that the
development rights for the Sanders Stream Margin Review be vested
pursuant to Section 6 -207 C. of the Aspen Land Use Regulations
revised date August 14, 1989; and
WHEREAS, the Commission voted 6 -1 to forward to City Council
I without prejudice the request to vest development rights in the
Sanders Stream Margin Review pursuant to Section 6 -207 C. of the
Land Use Regulations for a period of three years from the
effective date hereof subject to the terms and conditions
contained in the Sanders Stream Margin approval and herein below.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That it does hereby approve by the Sanders Stream Margin Review
with conditions as follows:
1. Permit(s) for tree removal must be obtained from Parks prior
to issuance of Building Permit.
2. Changes to the driveway location, if any, must retain ditch
alignment and flow capacity. Contact the Parks Department prior
to driveway changes.
•
ORDINANCE N0.46
(SERIES OF 1990)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN VESTING THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
FOR THE SANDERS STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
WHEREAS, on June 5, 1990, the Aspen Planning and Zoning
Commission unanimously approved the riverside development
proposal for the Sanders residential expansion at 1280 Red Butte
Drive (Lot 1 Gaylord Subdivision); and
WHEREAS, a request for Vested Rights for the Sanders Stream
Margin Review was submitted to the Planning Office by project
representative Sunny Vann; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 6 -207 of the Aspen Land Use
Code revision date May 25, 1988, the City Council may grant
Vesting of Development Rights for a period of three years; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Office recommends that Council approve
Vesting of Development Rights for the Sanders Stream Margin
Review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1:
That it does hereby grant Vested Rights for the Sanders
Stream Margin Review. The rights granted by the site specific
development plan shall remain vested 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 the Land Use Code shall also result in
X325418 08/17/90 10.52 Rec $15.00 }3K 627 PG 669
Siiv Davis, P':itl.::in Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
the forfeiture of said vested property rights.
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 provided for in Sec. 6 -207
(D).
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.
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
of 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, elect_ical 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.
#325418 08/17/90 10:52 Rec $15.00 BK: 627 PC 670
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
» ,-,
Section 6:
That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this
ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in the office of
the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 7:
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the o �`�
day of ?f/_ , 1990 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers,
Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which
a hearing of public notice of the same shall be published 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 0- day of
47--<-- , 1990.
t • l. ,y % William L. Stirling, Mayor
j
• 141r 4 f t11ryn, 7 3Zoch, City Clerk
D
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 09 a� day of
, 1989.
`;1 F ' SA� ir ! G;
�•� William L. Stirling, Maf"or
w ' 11../. \ Koch, City Clerk
\,....:
s. #325418 08/17/90 10:52 Rec $15.00 BK 627 PG 671
Silvia Davis, Pitkin Cnty Clerk, Doc $.00
jtkvj /sanders.ord
3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
THRU: Carol O'Dowd, City Manage
THRU: Amy Margerum, Planning Dirastor
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
DATE: July 11, 1990
RE: Second Reading of Ordinance 46, Sanders Stream Margin
Vested Rights
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recommends Second Reading of
Ordinance 46 which will vest for a three year period the
development rights approved in Stream Margin Review.
BACKGROUND: City Council had first reading of Ordinance 46 on
June 25, 1990. City Attorney Caswall has suggested some format
changes for inclusion in Ordinance 46. These have been included
in the attached ordinance for Second Reading.
On June 5, 1990, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
approved with conditions the Sanders Stream Margin Review.. As
part of this Stream Margin Review, representative Sonny Vann
requested the establishment of vested property rights for the
Stream Margin action. Pursuant to Section 6 -207, vesting of
property rights requires a Vested Rights Ordinance and two
readings before Council.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Staff recommends that the City
Council approve vesting of development rights approved in the
Sanders Stream Margin Review and have Second Reading of Ordinance
46.
PROPOSED MOTION: I move to have the Second Reading of Ordinance
46 for vesting the development rights of the Sanders Stream
Margin Review.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: L Cse cam/
Attachment - Ordinance 46 for Second Reading
jtkvj /sanders.vest2
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
June 27, 1990
Mr. Jim Gibbard
City of Aspen Engineering Department
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Sanders Stream Margin Review
Dear Jim:
Attached for your files is a revised survey of the Sanders
property which depicts the high water line as located by
Alpine Surveys. This information was required pursuant to
condition number three (3) of the P &Z's approval. A draft of
the fisherman's easement which was required pursuant to
condition number five (5) is also attached for your informa-
tion. As construction is not anticipated until next spring,
the remaining conditions of approval will be met by the
Applicant prior to issuance of a building permit.
Should you have any questions, or require further informa-
tion, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Sunny Van AICP
SV:cwv
cc: Kim Johnson
Attachments
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925 -6958
PZM6.5.90
of the river? If so then I think there might be reason to review
the type of thing we are concerned about.
Kim: The Greenway Plan addresses the River corridors as being
opportunities for preserving open space, natural vegetation,
natural habitat. When it does reflect design standards it is
usually in reference trail systems, public facilities or public
open spaces. It is mostly regarding not necessarily private
sites or specific locations. I think we could use that as
potential criteria and pick out items that we might be able to
apply visually in site specific locations.
Sunny: We are moving no mature vegetation except one tree which
the Parks Dept has said is in fowl shape. We have set back well
beyond the acceptable setback requirements of the zone district.
We are subject only to review because we are within a hundred
feet of the river.
If you want to expand the criteria to include the areas beyond
the l00ft setback criteria for Fisherman's Easements etc I think
that is fine. But I think what you are looking at now goes
beyond the criteria we currently have to work with.
MOTION
Bruce: I move to approve the Sanders Stream Margin Review and
also recommend that City Council grant vested rights for the 3
years as requested by the applicant subject to the 5 conditions
listed in the Planning Office memo dated June 5, 1990.
Mari seconded the motion.
Roger: I would suggest changing the wording about the vested
interest portion of it as not the P &Z recommends - -I really can't
find myself wanting to recommend the Council approval of a vested
interest but rather use the words forwarded to City Council - -not
indicating prejudice one way or the other of the vested interests
portion of this.
Bruce did not want to change his motion.
Richard: I am unwilling to support the vested rights portion of
the motion.
Graeme: I am with Richard.
t
Welton: Let the record show that Graeme, Jasmine, Roger and
Richard voted against the motion.
6
PZM6.5.90
MOTION
Bruce: I move to approve Sander's Stream Margin Review subject
to the 5 conditions of the Planning Office memo.
Mari seconded the motion with everyone in favor except Graeme.
MOTION •
•
Roger: I move to forward to Council the applicant's request for
vested interests of the Sanders Stream Margin Review without
comment.
Bruce seconded the motion.
Jasmine: I think if we are going to take that form of action it
is important to put the reasons why. And since there is such an
even split among members of the Commission as to why we are
either recommending or not recommending vesting, I think there
should be some comment.
Roger: Basically all I am doing is giving them a vehicle to go
to Council.
C Sunny: You either act or not act on it. You don't give a
recommendation regarding vested rights. The code says you grant
vested rights. The City Attorney has advised as an applicant
that if I want to be totally sure of what is correct in light of
the current legal situation that I should also request an
ordinance from Council.
Jasmine: I share the concerns that have been expressed about
vesting a project that nobody is really very happy with although
we don't have the grounds to deny it based on the current code.
I don't see why we should extend it beyond the normal life of
what would be expected with an approval for something that we are
not really all that excited to see get done in the first place
which is exactly what you are trying to protect.
I think that somewhere along the line somewhere there has to be a
record of our rational for doing what we are doing. And since
there are several people who feel that way I think it is very
important that it be on the record.
Sunny: My concern is that I don't think vested rights is
discretionary action. I don't think you can say ! "Well, I am not
going to vest you because I want to change the code." That is
the whole purpose of the vested rights is to give someone in the
process ability to rely on the approval.
7 -
PZM6.5.90
Jasmine: There is probably going to be a legal point of view and
I just think that whatever happens that it is important for us to
put our viewpoints on the record.
Glenn Horn: I have looked over the code and there is no basis
for discretionary review when it comes to vested rights. It is a
right of the applicant. There are no criteria that say the City
can vest when they want to. It is just a basic right and when it
comes to procedural action of the P &Z Commission and the City
Council I don't think you have the right not to vest something
that somebody asks vesting for.
Mari: I guess I am just curious why we then have to vote on
something which is not discretionary.
Welton: It is just a formal action that has to be taken.
Roger: The motion was to forward the applicant's request for
vested interests to City Council without comment. That is all
that is necessary. It is a vehicle.
Bruce: Does the code say that the P &Z Commission grants the
vested rights?
Sunny: When legislature passed the vested rights last year they
left it up to the jurisdictions to establish certain ways to
implement that legislation. There are reviews which Council has
delegated to P &Z. Stream Margin Review is one of them. In those
cases our code says that P &Z vest in one step applications.
Because of some controversies that have come up regarding several
suits involving the City the Attorney has advised us as
applicants that if we want to be totally certain we will take the
vested rights granted by P &Z to Council and have them rubber
stamp them by adoption of an ordinance.
So I am asking as part of my application for vested rights status
from the P &Z as part of this approval. As Glenn said I don't
think you have discretion to withhold it.
Bruce: It seems to me we voted 4 to 3 against vested rights and
it is an item we don't have discretion on.
Roger:. We do have a motion on the floor and that is to forward
the application including the vested rights for a period of 3
years by Council action.
•
Everyone voted in favor of the motion except Jasmine.
8 -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Sanders Stream Margin Review
DATE: June 5, 1990
SUMMARY: The Planning Office recom ends p roval the Str9,am
Margin Review with conditions. \1 O S 1A4 As ,
APPLICANT: Cheryl A. Sanders, represented by S nny Vann a C £
v
LOCATION: 1280 Red Butte Dr., Lot 1 Gaylord Subdivision
ZONING: R - 30, PUD
APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Stream Margin Review approval for the
enlargement of a residence .
PROPOSAL: The applicant wishes to expand an existing 3 bedroom
residence from 1,420 s.f. to 6,080 s.f. Included in the proposal
is a swimming pool and spa between the house and the river. The
lot size is 51,790 s.f. (1.189 ac.) The building site lies
within 100' of the high water line of the Roaring Fork River, but
lies outside of the 100 year floodplain. The building footprint
meets required setbacks and FAR limits of 6,080 s.f. for the R -30
zone district. The existing garage will be removed and a new
garage will be incorporated into the proposed addition.
(Attachment "A ")
REFERRAL COMMENTS:
Engineering: Jim Gibbard forwarded the following report -
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. We recommend that no vegetation be disturbed between the
building envelope and the edge of the river. The applicant needs
to submit a letter to the Engineering Department which outlines
construction procedure and which will confirm that there will be
no impact on the river or river bank. This needs to be submitted
before any building permit is issued.
2. Location of the high water line needs to be drawn and labeled
on the site plan.
3. The applicant will need to get a permit form the Parks
Department for the removal of the 12 inch diameter pine tree on
the southwest corner of the existing house before issuance of a
building permit.
4. Although not a code requirement, we would suggest that the
applicant grant a fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River
and for a width of 5 feet along the property side of the river.
(Attachment "B ")
Parks: Bill Ness has the following comments:
After reviewing Sander's application for stream margin review,
and walking the job site the Parks Dept. feels comfortable with
what the owners propose.
The one (1) 12" diameter spruce tree located near the center of
the addition is not aesthetically appealing considering the top
of the tree is missing. A tree removal permit will be approved
of a landscaping plan is submitted. (Attachment "C ")
STAFF COMMENTS: The proposed plan for the pool and spa area
offers a conceptual sketch for treatment of the slope from the
finished floor level down to undisturbed ground. The fill areas
represent about 15' -18' of elevation difference. The sketch
indicates a retaining wall of native stone. Staff feels that
additional visual relief is needed to reduce the visual impact of
the large expanses of wall. Minor terracing of the walls and
inclusion of a mix of plant materials, preferably native
varieties, should be a requirement of this project.
A fisherman's easement within the bank of the river is platted on
the Gaylord Subdivision Plat. Planning and Engineering recommend
that this easement be expanded to include an area 5' (measured
horizontally) above the high water line.
The applicant has indicated that the driveway access will remain
as it is currently. An irrigation ditch crosses the front part
of the lot and goes under the existing driveway in a culvert.
Any changes to the driveway must retain the ditch alignment.
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:
The proposed expansion and site improvements are located above
the 100 year flood plain so the base flood elevation will not be
affected.
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:
The Rio Grande trail is located across the river. No trail has
been designated across the parcel.
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 Plan makes no specific recommendations for this site. The
conceptual sketch of the pool /spa area indicates a natural rock
retaining wall. This conforms to the suggested design criteria
from the Plan. Staff is concerned that vegetation and terrace
relief be incorporated into the wall to soften its visual impact
from across the river.
Criteria 4: No vegetation is removed or slope grade changes made
that produce erosion and sedimentation of the stream bank.
Response:
The application states that regrading of the bank is required and
vegetation must be removed (mostly scrub oak and brush.) The
applicant offers that the bank will be stabilized and landscaped
and precautions will be taken during construction to prevent
sedimentation (e.g. hay bales.)
Criteria 5: To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed
development reduces pollution and interference with the natural
changes of the river, stream or other tributary.
Response:
The improvements will be mitigated by revegetation. Care will be
taken to prevent pollution of the river. The natural changes of
the river channel will not be adversely affected.
Criteria 6: Written notice is given to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a
water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Response:
Not Applicable
Criteria 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.
Response:
Not applicable - no impacts on the flood plain will occur with
this proposal.
Criteria 8: Copies are provided of all necessary federal and
state permits relating to work within the one hundred (100) year
floodplain.
Response:
.� A
y Mh.
\ . ' . .I r r e
� - r; M. --- . f. .,- ,
- ; i� .�. C. ( r .,.v
"°
Not applicable � � L , 6 r' � (1
STAFF REC I 4
The Planning Office recommends approval of the Sanders Stream
Margin Review y Zhe conditions:
1. Permit(s) for tree removal, must be gbtained from Parks prior
to issuance of Building Permit.
2. Changes to the driveway location, if any, must retain ditch
alignment and flow capacity. Contact the Parks Department prior
to driveway changes.
3. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, the applicant shall
submit a letter to the Engineering Department outlining the
construction procedure and confirming that there will be no
impact on the river or river bank. The high water line must be
drawn and labeled on the site plan in Engineering's files as well
as the site plan submitted for permit.
4. Landscape plan of the retaining walls around the pool and spa
shall include terracing and inclusion of vegetation to soften its
visual impact from across the river. Submit plan to Planning for
approval prior to issuance of Building Permit.
5. A fisherman's easement shall be recorded with the Pitkin
County Clerk and Recorder's o ice to include a width of 5 feet
measured horizontally from e high water line along the river.
This shall be recorded pri r to issuance of a Building Permit.
•
o`
Attachmen s: "A" - Engineering Referral
"B" - Parks Referral
"C" - Site Plan CC_
r
y
, t r ,
�I ( ' � C \ r" ( ' .
( Ti it fi,
n
jtkvj /sanders.memo .t -t q ' I , . €
_____ . . ___ _ • ,.
- --- , ---
. -.
- . At. ,,chment"A"
•
- t . , .
/
---- /
-...., /
---.. sail • 4 1 ROARING
382-031E ...
c 4 6 E A4 E 7 : .%. ( 3 5 7/ 4 A P iDi E.-
naps_
WIt• - - _
a ••• PLAIN DA1A TAVEN --c.,--,.._ -48 . ---3 fs,
-------- — v 48
,• CoRP OF ENGINEERS SlUCA
PREPARE.° IN 1975. E051;ANCES -------......„.....,_
Is.
/WALE° FROM 5 1 - %PARC — -----, S e
, PROrn FICCO MA P
/
0 14/47-0•
4 19 I
? MAY . . 01
RE A
. ilif --.4t
t)
LEIF 5 ..,C2 5CT WC Rt000 W/RA'AICost
4.512w? i., ' al k 44 \
• KIEFFER MENDENTIALL 07
0 10 ..•
ft. eox 191 - S 0
/N
19
' urvitr
? u lilts :37
j to I: Ce4;14.
.0.4i 1 A
. .
O - - - i RIte AN 6.
r■ 05 1, C 1
4 OPEN 5F
J \ . cV / 4-us a ri I. 0262 ACRE
0 3 "? i Ay LOT I „ • -, 7S Z`'
IKMATON .7 !AO' I. ACRE
ia-IES kf I A) EL WO
Ottige Dil
11
.
to AO / 7 , s
• P
.., .a,
, 7 esA e
%.. 1 Il O t: /- e (f .. /
-.. --- N
--) lk- o f,r5/ k •
\ Z 3/40.. EL . ,'3 3
a .13 4 R4r / '4 0
graNZ Atomic cAP it - W A el Ate tral
• 1.15. f - "Er
,/ LOT 2 / /
•
5. /
- 33 'S \ ‹.. 0-545 ACRE_
i it
„... ,03.„,....Ph, . ■ --.... 8o y 1 • scs, . ,..- f /.. 41
ae. ---,. 0, LI , 84 1/4 45141
_
?•e-s /ea L.14 EWASSCAT' '"- 7 • a 17 t --, ni 4- k
-
S., 9N GORWER•tECTION 1, "ci.c4-1 ..„. -----. G
-...., tv -L IR,e,,
""-.... T105, -R155W Ortirt!rtii •--- , , z 7 / /
.. . ,
- ---t•--1 / /
-----------. water? -R•0454b lay. goo --.
-_ --._
/ --..
LOT
. 3 ; /
.. _s-tnizia-Li. ,
/ --•-. -_, -....
,-- •.-., _ 0.474 ACRE
.(1 / --.....,
/ --.. fAip-ir.... --...< 7-
-.....--. k ...... ..
/ -.. Rie-iii.,
---...,,. G
:: ,„ tir
-- .2/ ie)--- i /
----, --- -..._. G?. ---- L
--
/ momto vcogt im / - - 5
/ / ■ ._ 3 /4 / 1
2 --,J
/ PO 619 --, .2,
/ r
-..
ASPEN, W BI Co i t /-,
I
•
• • • •`\ \ \fix �\ \\ \` %scut., mortar
\\ E
ii\
V •
s \: : :\ \n \ \ a rc: . •
- 4 - < ‘
• • • \ •
•
•
•
TfG ar ii 4 ' :j. ■ • •
• s, .,' \ \ • •
.
.
i
,
—.. _ — _ — _�
-
II
- w.riV
r f.....__ t�� .r
i
:l I
Gicieli w Td M e4-- GCE !://. ,,.,,
, y .
II
• F
7
r
1
r
attachment "B"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Jim Gibbard, Engineering Department
DATE: April 12, 1990
RE: Sanders Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use
Having reviewed the above application and made a site visit, the
Engineering Department has the following comments:
1. We recommend that no vegetation be disturbed between the
building envelope and the edge of the river. The applicant needs
to submit a letter to the Engineering Department which outlines
construction procedure and which will confirm that there will be
no impact on the river or river bank. This needs to be submitted
before any building permit is issued.
2. Location of the high water line needs to be drawn and labeled
on the site plan.
3. The applicant will need to get a permit from the Parks
Department for the removal of the 12 inch diameter pine tree on
the southwest corner of the existing house before issuance of a
building permit.
4. The satellite antenna dish which the applicant proposes to
place must be shown on the site plan.
5. Although not a code requirement, we would suggest that the
applicant grant a fisherman's easement in the Roaring Fork River
and for a width of 5 feet along the property side of the river.
jg \sanders
cc: Chuck Roth
■
Attachment "C"
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kim Johnson, Planning Office
FROM: Bill Ness, Parks Superintendent
RE: Sanders Stream Margin Review, and Conditional Use Review for Accessory
Dwelling Unit and Satellite Dish
DATE: April 4, 1990
After reviewing Sanders application for stream margin review, and walking the
job site the Parks Dept. feels comfortable with what the owners propose.
The one (1) 12" diameter spruce tree located near the center of the addition is not
aesthetically appealing considering the top of the tree is missing. A tree removal
permit will be approved if a landscape plan is submitted.
�.r
•
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC. -9
Planning Consultants
May 9, 1990
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Sanders Stream Margin Review Application
Dear Kim:
As we discussed earlier today, the Applicant in the above
referenced application would like to withdraw her request for
conditional use approval for a satellite dish antenna. The
Applicant has decided to eliminate the antenna in order to
reduce the impact of development on the owner of Lots 2 and
3 of the Red Butte Subdivision.
As you know, the required conditional use public hearing was
continued to the June 5, 1990 P &Z meeting. As the antenna is
no longer a part of this application, the need for a public
hearing has been eliminated. It is my understanding,
however, that the Applicant's stream margin review request
will be considered at the June 5 meeting.
Attached for your information is a revised site development
plan which depicts the relocated garage. As we discussed
previously, the garage was relocated in response to concerns
raised by the owner of Lots 2 and 3 of the Gaylord Subdivi-
sion. This architectural revision, and the elimination of
the satellite antenna, strongly reflect, I believe, the
Applicant's responsiveness to neighborhood concerns.
At your request, I have requested that a site section through
the pool and spa area of the development plan be sent to you
at the Planning Office. Regrading of a portion of the
property in this area will be required and some vegetation
will have to be removed. The Applicant, however, will
stabilize and landscape the regraded bank to avoid any
adverse effect upon the Roaring Fork River. As the site
development plan illustrates, the area in question is located
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925 -6958
. 3
Ms. Kim Johnson
May 9, 1990
Page 2
outside of the one hundred (100) year floodplain and well
back from the edge of the River. Adequate precautions (e.g.,
hay bales) will be taken during construction to prevent
sedimentation.
Should you have any questions, or require additional informa-
tion, please do hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
V ANN OCIATES, INC.
n ny Va AICP
SV:cwv
Attachment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Kim Johnson, Planner
RE: Sanders Stream Margin Review and Conditional Use -
Tabled to June 5, 1990
DATE: May 8, 1990
Due to recent changes in this project, the Planning Office and
Sunny Vann request that the Commission table the item until June
5, 1990 to allow for further staff review. As this was to be a
public hearing for the Conditional Use for a satellite dish,
public hearing will need to be opened, then changed to the . new
date. Thank you.
jtkvj /sanders.table
•
VANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Planning Consultants
March 14, 1990
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Sanders Stream Margin Review
Dear Kim:
Please consider this letter an application for stream margin
and conditional use review for a parcel of land located at
1280 Red Butte Drive in the City of Aspen (see Pre- Applica-
tion Conference Summary attached hereto as Exhibit 1).
Vested rights status for the proposed site development plan
is also requested. The application is submitted pursuant to
Sections 7 -504 and 7 -305 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations by
Cheryl A. Sanders, the owner of the property (see Exhibit 2,
Title Policy). Permission for Vann Associates to represent
the Applicant is attached as Exhibit 3.
Project Site
The parcel in question consists of Lot 1 of the Gaylord
Subdivision. The lot contains 1.189 acres, or approximately
51,790 square feet of land area, and is zoned R -30, Low -
Density Residential, Mandatory Planned Unit Development.
While the lot conforms to the dimensional requirements of the
R -30 zone district, it should be noted that its northern
boundary is located within the Roaring Fork River, and that
a portion of the lot lies within the 100 year flood plain.
As the accompanying survey illustrates, the parcel is
essentially flat with the exception of the embankment which
parallels the River. Man -made improvements include an
approximately 1,420 square foot, three (3) bedroom, single -
family residence and a 840 square foot detached garage. The
residence is located at the rear of the lot near the top of
the embankment. Existing vegetation consists primarily of
numerous large aspen and spruce trees, the majority of which
are located adjacent to the River.
230 East Hopkins Avenue • Aspen, Colorado 81611 •303/925 -6958
Ms. Kim Johnson
March 14, 1990
Page 2
Proposed Development
The Applicant proposes to retain the existing residence and
to construct an approximately 5,440 square foot addition
thereto. The existing residence's kitchen will be removed
and a new kitchen constructed in connection with the proposed
addition. As a result, the remodeled structure will continue
to meet the City's definition of a single - family residence.
The existing garage will be removed and a new garage incorpo-
rated in the proposed addition. The floor area of the
residence after remodeling will be approximately 6,080 square
feet.
The proposed building footprint is depicted on the site
development plan which accompanies this application. As the
plan illustrates, the proposed addition is located well
outside of the 100 year flood plain, and all setbacks meet or
exceed the applicable requirements of the R -30 zone district.
Site disruption will be limited to the excavation of the
addition's foundation, and little or no mature vegetation
will be lost as a result of the expansion. Development data
for the proposed expansion is summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1
DEVELOPMENT DATA
1. Existing Zoning R -30, Residential, PUD
2. Existing Site Area (Sq. Ft.) 51,790
Land Under Water 10,380
Remainder 41,410
3. Minimum Required Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 30,000
4. Maximum Allowable Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) 6,080
5. Proposed Floor Area (Sq. Ft.) 6,080
Existing Residence 1,140
Addition 4,940
Note: All square footages are rounded to the nearest ten (10)
square feet.
Ms. Kim Johnson
March 14, 1990
Page 3
The Applicant also wishes to install a satellite dish antenna
adjacent to the existing residence. The antenna, which will
be approximately ten (10) feet in both height and diameter,
will be located between the east side of the residence and
the ten (10) foot side yard setback. The area in question is
located approximately ten (10) feet below the entry level of
the residence and is well screened by existing vegetation.
Additional landscaping will be installed by the Applicant to
further shield the antenna from the public's view.
Review Requirements
Pursuant to Section 7 -504 of the Aspen Land Use Regulations,
all development within one hundred (100) feet of the high
water line of the Roaring Fork River, or within the one
hundred (100) year flood plain, is subject to stream margin
review. As the Applicant's proposed improvements are located
within 100 feet of the River, review and approval pursuant to
the City's stream margin regulations is required. The
specific review criteria, and the proposed addition's compli-
ance therewith, are summarized as follows.
1. "It can be demonstrated that any proposed development
which is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not in-
crease the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed
for development."
This review criteria is not applicable as the proposed
addition is located outside of the 100 year flood plain.
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."
According to the adopted trails plan map, no trail has
been designated across the parcel.
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 parcel. The
proposed addition, however, will have no significant
effect on the site's existing river front vegetation nor
will the natural appearance of the River be impacted in
any foreseeable manner.
Ms. Kim Johnson
March 14, 1990
Page 4
While some vegetation will obviously have to be removed
to accommodate the proposed building footprint, loss of
vegetation will be mitigated by additional landscaping
to be installed in connection with the remodeling of the
residence. It should also be noted that a permit is
required for the removal of any tree with a trunk
diameter in excess of six (6) inches. As discussed
previously, the majority of the parcel's existing mature
vegetation is located adjacent to the River.
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.
5. "To the greatest extent practicable, the proposed devel-
opment reduces pollution and interference with the
natural changes of the river, stream or other tribu-
tary."
The proposed addition will have no adverse effect upon
the natural changes normally experienced by the Roaring
Fork River. All disturbed areas will be revegetated to
preclude erosion and appropriate safeguards will be
utilized to prevent pollution of the River during con-
struction.
6. "Written notice is given to the Colorado Water Conserva-
tion Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a
water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency."
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 dimin-
ished."
This review criteria is not applicable as no alterations
to the River are proposed by the Applicant.
8. "Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state
permits relating to work within the one hundred (100)
year floodplain."
Ms. Kim Johnson
March 14, 1990
Page 5
No federal or state permits are required as no construc-
tion is proposed within the 100 year flood plain.
Satellite dish antennae are a conditional use in the R -30
zone district. As such, their installation is subject to
conditional use review pursuant to Section 7 -305 of the
Regulations. The specific review criteria, and the proposed
satellite dish antenna's compliance therewith, are summarized
as follows.
1. "The conditional use is consistent with the purposes,
goals, objectives and standards of the Aspen Area
Comprehensive Plan, and with the intent of the Zone
District in which it is proposed to be located."
While the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan makes no
reference to satellite dish antennae, such devices are
a relatively common accompaniment to residential
development. The parcel's underlying R -30 zoning
provides for low- density residential development and
customary accessory uses. As satellite dish antennae
commonly accompany such development, they are consis-
tent, I believe, with the intent of the zone district.
2. "The conditional use is consistent and compatible with
the character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel
proposed for development and surrounding land uses, or
enhances the mixture of complimentary uses and activi-
ties in the vicinity of the parcel proposed for develop-
ment."
The immediate site area is residential in nature. While
the number of existing satellite dish antennae in the
area is unknown, the addition of the Applicant's antenna
would be compatible, I believe, with the residential
character of the area.
3. "The location, size, design and operating characteris-
tics of the proposed conditional use minimizes adverse
effects, including visual impacts, impacts on pedestrian
and vehicular circulation, parking, trash, service
delivery, noise, vibrations and odor on surrounding
properties."
As discussed previously, the proposed antenna will be
located on one of the least intrusive areas of the
parcel. The area in question is located below street
level and is shielded from view by existing vegetation.
0
Ms. Kim Johnson
March 14, 1990
Page 6
Additional landscaping will be installed by the Appli-
cant to further reduce the antenna's visual impact.
4. "There are adequate public facilities and services to
serve the conditional use including but not limited to
roads, potable water, sewer, solid waste, parks, police,
fire protection, emergency medical services, hospital
and medical services, drainage systems, and schools."
The proposed antenna will have no impact upon the above
public facilities and services.
5. "The Applicants commit to supply affordable housing to
meet the incremental need for increased employees
generated by the condition use."
As no employees will be generated as a result of the
installation of the antenna, no affordable housing is
required.
6. "The proposed conditional use complies with all addi-
tional standards imposed on it by the Aspen Area Compre-
hensive Plan and by all other applicable requirements of
this chapter."
The Applicant's proposed satellite dish antenna will be
located outside of the required side yard setback. To
the best of my knowledge, no additional review standards
are contained within the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan
or Land Use Regulations which apply to the antenna's
installation.
As noted previously, the parcel is zoned mandatory planned
unit development. The proposed addition, however, is exempt
from PUD review, as Section 7 -902 expressly excludes detached
single - family residences from compliance with the PUD pro-
visions of the Land Use Regulations. The addition is also
exempt from the affordable housing provisions of Ordinance 1,
Series of 1990. Pursuant to Section 8- 104(A)(1)(a)(5) of the
Regulations as amended, the remodeling, restoration or
expansion of existing single - family dwellings is exempt from
growth management subject only to the approval of the
Planning Director. As the existing residence is to be
retained, no affordable housing mitigation is required.
Summary
Based on the above, we believe that the proposed addition and
satellite dish antenna comply with the intent and require-
Ms. Kim Johnson
March 14, 1990
Page 7
ments of Sections 7 -504 and 7 -305 of the Land Use Regulations
and, consequently, will have no adverse effect upon either
the Roaring Fork River or the general public. The Applicant,
therefore, respectfully requests stream margin and condition-
al use approval for the proposed addition and antenna as
depicted on the accompanying site development plan.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any assis-
tance, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
VANN AS OCIA ,
Sunny Vann AICP
SV:cwv
Attachments
CITY OF ASPEN f EXHIBIT 1
G PRE- APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY
PROJECT: J ./Y G�
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: i/n t Y d AWN1/
REPRESENTATIVE'S PHONE: r �(()
OWNER'S NAME: mice 4 Ckery/ `jr14 d'Crc
SUMMARY
1. Type of Application: 5f' - 7i2 l a+,212,e..f (47fe . �kQ�
Ac, D,
2. Describe action /type of development being requested: nt
!ii o .61 I, (3 -4 r Ai $ c Ft r r • X / 0/. C rz.
t(G, r1, • Okui 2419a4A-lk
3. Areas is which Applicant has been requested to respond,
types of reports requested:
Policy Area/
Referral Agent Comments
C ytaWt.a;,,w1,,1 ) -
U !J
4. Review is: (1&Z Only (CC Only) (P &Z then to CC)
5. Public Hearing: -*it_
6. Number of copies of the application to be submitted:
7. What fee was applicant requested to submit: ? r 8
8. Anticipated date of submission:
9. COMMENTS /UNIQUE CONCERNS:
frm.pre_app
. EXHIBIT 2
S C H E D U L E A
ORDER NO.: 00016854 POLICY NO.: 0- 9941456573
DATE OF POLICY: January 16, 1990 at 10:52 A.M.
AMOUNT OF INSURANCE: $ 850,000.00
1. NAME OF INSURED:
CHERYL A. SANDERS
2. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND WETICH IS COVERED BY THIS
POLICY IS:
Fee Simple
3. TITLE TO THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND IS VESTED IN:
CHERYL A. SANDERS
4. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS POLICY IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Lot 1, GAYLORD SUBDIVISION, according to the Plat thereof
recorded July 28, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at Page 20 as Reception
No. 185713.
County of Pitkin, State of Colorado
Stewart Title of Aspen, Inc.
602 E. Hyman
Aspen, CO 81611
303- 925 -3577
kiikie
•
e,UTHOP/1ZED
SIGNATURE
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
or iann RS ln.201
S C H E D U L E B
POLICY NO.: 0- 9941456573
THIS POLICY DOES NOT INSURE AGAINST IOSS OR DAMAGE (AND THE
COMPANY WILL NOT PAY COSTS, ATTORNEYS' FEES OR EXPENSES) WIIICFI
ARISE BY REASON OF:
1. RIGHTS OR CLAIMS OF PARTIES IN POSSESSION NOT SHOWN BY THE
PUBLIC RECORDS.
2. EASEMENTS, OR CLAIMS OF EASEMENTS, NOT SHOWN BY THE.PUBLIC
RECORDS.
•
3. DISCREPANCIES, CONFLICTS IN BOUNDARY LINES, SHORTAGE IN
AREA, ENCROACHMENTS, AND ANY FACTS WHICH A CORRECT SURVEY
AND ,'INSPECTION OF THE PREMISES WOULD DISCLOSE AND WHICH ARE
NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
4. ANY LIEN, OR RIGHT TO A LIEN, FOR SERVICES, LABOR OR
MATERIAL HERETOFORE OR HEREAFTER FURNISHED, IMPOSED BY LAW
AND NOT SHOWN BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS.
5. T AXIEB,'MIXW.LAX X7r 1'E1G; WATER RIGHTS, CLAIMS OR TITLE TO
WATER.
6. ANY AND ALL UNPAID TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS AND ANY UNREDEEMED
TAX SALES.
7. THE EFFECT OF INCLUSIONS IN ANY GENERAL OR SPECIFIC WATER
CONSERVANCY, FIRE PROTECTION, SOIL CONSERVATION OR OTHER
DISTRICT OR INCLUSIONS IN ANY WATER SERVICE OR STREET
IMPROVEMENT AREA.
8. Right of the proprietor of a vein or lode to extract and remove
his ore therefrom, should the same be found to penetrate or
intersect the premises hereby granted, as reserved in United
States Patent recorded April 25, 1906 in Book 55 at Page 152 as
Reception No. 70653.
9. Easements, setbacks and restrictions as shown on Plat of
Gaylord Subdivision recorded July 28, 1976 in Plat Book 5 at
Page 20 as Reception No. 185713.
10. Terms, conditions, covenants and obligations as set forth in
Subdivision Agreement recorded July_ 2$, 1976 in Book 314 at
Page 775 as Reception No. 135712.
11. Terms, conditions, restrictions and obligations as set forth in
Protective Covenants recorded July 05, 1977 in Book 331 at Page
377 as Reception No. 195624.
Continued on next page:
EXCEPTIONS NUMBERED 1 -4 ARE HEREBY OMITTED.
• STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
•
C (500M 10 -89)
ATTACHED TO AND MADE A PART OF
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY POLICY NO.: 0- 9941456573
CONTINUATION OF SCHEDULE B
12. This policy does not insure title to land comprising the shores
or bottoms of rivers and is subject to any build up or Joss of
property along Roaring Fork River, caused by the processes of
accretion and reliction, or caused' by man made changes in the
flow of water or in the course of the river bank or river
channel; also subject to the free and unobstructed flow of the
water of said river.
13. Easement granted to Aspen Metropolitan Sanitation District,
recorded July 23, 1970 in Book 249 at Page 601 as Reception No.
141436, as same may affect subject property.
14. A Deed of Trust dated January 16, 1990, executed by Cheryl A.
Sanders, to the Public Trustee of Pitkin County, to secure an
indebtedness of 5550,000.00, in favor of Pitkin County Bank &
Trust Company, recorded January 16, 1990 in Book 611 at Page 983
as Reception No. 319121.
NOTE: Assignment of Rents recorded January 16, 1990 in Book 611
at Page 985 as Reception No. 319122, given in connection with
the above Deed of Trust.
•
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
ENDORSEMENT TO TITLE POLICY '
SERIAL NUMBER 0- 9941456573 CHARGE
NO. 00016854 FORM S N/C
Issued by
STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
HEREIN CALLED THE COMPANY
SCHEDULE B, EXCEPTION NO. 6 ON THE ABOVE REFERENCED OWNER'S
TITLE POLICY IS HEREBY AMENDED TO WIT:
Taxes and Assessments for the year 1990, not yet due and
payable, and subsequent years and any special assessments not
yet certified on the tax rolls of Pitkin County.
This Endorsement is made a part of said policy and is subject to
the schedules, conditions and stipulations therein, except as
modified by the provisions hereof.
Nothing herein contained shall be construed as extending or
changing the effective date of said policy, unless otherwise
expressly stated.
Signed under seal for the Company, but the Endorsement is to be
valid only when it bears an authorized signature, effective as
of the date of the policy thereto.
Stewart Title of Aspen,
Inc.
602 E. Hyman Ave.
r&alear-44. ` / Aspen, Colorado 81611 303) 925 -3577
( Autt+forized Sure
STEWART TITLE
GUARANTY COMPANY
• EXHIBIT 3
February 21, 1990
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Kim Johnson
Aspen /Pitkin Planning Office
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Permission to Represent
Dear Ms. Johnson:
Please consider this letter authorization for Sunny Vann of
Vann Associates, Inc. to represent me in the processing of
a stream margin review and conditional use application for
my property which is located adjacent to the Roaring Fork
River and Red Butte Drive in the City of Aspen. Mr. Vann is
hereby authorized to act on my behalf with respect to all
matters reasonably pertaining to the aforementioned applica-
tion.
Should you have any questions, or if I can be of any further
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at (818)
346 -5644.
Sincerely,
I t
p I (f ) lam/
CYf k :L Sa lip()
Y
SV:cwv
NOTICE TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
RE: SANDERS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW FOR A SATELLITE DISH
ANTENNAE AND STREAM MARGIN REVIEW
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held on
Tuesday, May 8, 1990 at a meeting to begin at 4:30 pm 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 Cheryl Sanders requesting
Conditional Use Review approval for a Satellite Dish Antennae.
The applicant is also seeking Stream Margin Review approval for
an approximately 5,440 square foot addition to the existing
single - family residence. The property is 1280 Red Butte Drive,
Lot 1, Gaylord Subdivision.
For further information, contact the Aspen /Pitkin Planning
Office, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 920 -5090.
s /C. Welton Anderson. Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission