HomeMy WebLinkAboutLand Use Case.610 S Riverside Ave.A069-98 • F
CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING CASELOAD INDEX
2737- 181 -55001 „ 8/21/98 � ." A069 -98
610 South Riverside Ave. ESA �_` Chris Bendon
610 South Riverside Ave. ESA ..
Jeffrey A. Marcus ( 6801 Turtle Creek Blv Dallas, TX 75205 ( ",.
Robert Hehall 215 Columbine Crt. Basalt, CO 81621 i 927 -4432
1080 (d) + 110 (en9) 1190
10. Z0. 4$
• S 1,1111111111
10.22 Kcal
moiiimi
sr. I ' I
RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
APPROVING A STREAM MARGIN REVIEW AND SPECIAL REVIEW FOR
THE MARCUS RESIDENCE, 610 RIVERSIDE AVENUE, CITY OF ASPEN.
PARCEL NO. 2737-181-55-001
Resolution #98 - 33
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from Jeffrey A. Marcus, owner and applicant, for a Stream Margin Review and Special
Review for an existing single - family home at 610 Riverside Avenue; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed development is closer to the river than the existing
development requiring review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission;
and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve development
within the Stream Margin Environmentally Sensitive Area in conformance with the
review criteria set forth in Section 26.68.040; and,
WHEREAS, the City Engineer, Parks Department, and Community Development
Department reviewed the proposal and recommended approval with conditions; and
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on October 20, 1998, the Planning and
Zoning Commission approved by a 5 to 0 vote the Stream Margin Review and Special
Review for the Marcus Residence, with the conditions recommended by the Community
Development Department.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission:
That the Stream Margin Review for the Marcus Residence, 610 Riverside Avenue, is
approved with the following conditions:
1. The proposed development for the deck expansion, deck seating, timber steps, and fence as
represented in the application is nQt approved. The construction of railings between the two
rocks bordering the hot tub patio is approved.
2. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County Clerk
and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page recordation fee. In
the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will record the resolution.
3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
.
APPROVED by the Commission at its regular meeting on October 20, 1998.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION:
-Id cij Jakt244j-A--C 57Ct
City Attorney V Jasmine Tygre, Vice Chair , '
ATTEST:
y 'bey*tt.fZC�Ct ie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
4
MEMORANDUM
To: Chris Bendon, Project Planner
Thru: Nick Adeh, City Engineer /1
From: Ross C. Soderstrom, Project neer
Date: October 8, 1998
Re: Marcus Stream Margin Review
Physical Address: 610 S. Riverside Avenue, City of Aspen, CO
Legal Description: Lot 1, Gordon Lot Split, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, CO
[Sec. 18, T1OS, R84W]
Parcel ID No.: xxxx- xxx- xx -xxx
After reviewing the above referenced application and making a site visit, I am reporting the combined
comments made by the members of the DRC:
1. Application and Improvement Survey : The applicant will need to submit a complete and
current Improvement Survey plat of the property with the building permit application. The plat needs to
conform to the standards of an improvement survey for stream margin review.
The survey provided with the application lacks the following: complete topography between the waters edge
and top of slope set back for the entire length of the property; edge of water and identification of water's edge
(e.g. mean, mean high, level on a particular date); benchmark and datum information for flood plain
delineation; determination and delineation of top of slope; completion of the trail easement across the property;
date and number of the title commitment (issued with last calendar year) used in the survey; delineation of
wetland and riparian zones; certificate for depositing/recording of the improvement survey with the Pitkin
County Clerk & Recorder; identification of found and set survey monuments at each angle point; and the wet
ink signature and seal of a currently registered Colorado land surveyor.
The Improvement Survey should be recorded/deposited with the Pitkin County Clerk & Recorder before
issuance of the building permit.
The applicant will be required to complete the standard requirements and conditions associated with the
form(s) of development requested in the application.
2. Changes in Conditions: If the proposed use, density, or timing of construction of the project
change, or the site, grading, drainage, parking or utility plans for this project change subsequent to this review,
a complete set of the revised plans shall be provided to the Engineering Dept. for review and re- evaluation.
The discussion and recommendations given in this memorandum apply to the application and plans (received
April 10, 1998) provided for this review and such comments and recommendations may change in response to
DRCM3198.DOC
1 OF 3
Memo - Marcus Stream Margin Review
changes in the use, density, or timing of the construction of the project, or changes in the site, grading,
drainage, parking or utility designs.
3. Utility Services, Trash and Recycling Areas: The proposed addition does not appear to be
significant enough to require any up- grades to the utilities serving the property. Utility service connection
points, meters, etc., need to be accessible to service personnel in the completed project and not obstructed by
garbage or recycling containers, other structures or landscaping. AU existing and any new easements for
utilities shall be shown on the final improvement plans submitted for the building permit.
4. Site Drainage: The new development cannot release more than historic (pre- development) storm run -
off flows from the site and any increase in historic storm run -off flows must be first routed and detained on the
site. A drainage report and drainage plan (including erosion and sedimentation control measures) completed
and stamped by a Colorado licensed civil engineer will be required for the project to accommodate the drainage
flows originating from the site. If a ground injection or re- charge type drainage system is proposed, the
percolation rate of the soils will need to be measured and reported in a geotechnical report, and included as the
basis for sizing the infiltration field. The drainage report and plan, and the geotechnical report, if any, will be
included with the plan set submitted for the building permit application.
Precipitation intensity curves for a two year (2 yr.) storm frequency should be used in designing the drainage
improvements. The drainage plan should minimize introducing additional drainage on to the riverbank slope,
particularly concentrated flows.
5. Access Easement: Clear passage should be maintained for the access easement around the east
side of the property. The proposed new landscaping should not impede vehicular access for utility
maintenance. As an alternative, the owner may consider constructing fences and gates to maintain service
vehicle access while still providing privacy.
6. Fishing Easement: The property owner should grant a fishing easement along the edge of water
in the Roaring Fork River as located and specified by the City Parks Dept. The easement agreement should be
recorded prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. Stream Margin Review: Because the proposed addition (as well as the existing building)
lies within the top of slope set -back line of the Roaring Fork River, this application must be reviewed as
an exception to the stream margin review criteria. Apart from this condition, the proposed addition may
meet the criteria for stream margin review.
The area below the proposed addition and extending twenty (20) ft beyond in each direction will need to be
delineated by construction fencing incorporating sediment webbing or an approved alternate debris and
sediment barrier below the work area. The barrier should be erected prior to construction and maintained
throughout construction until the later of either the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or completion and
establishment of the landscaping.
DRCM3I98.DOC
2 OF 3
Memo - Marcus Stream Margin Review
The top of slope delineation should be determined and included in the Improvement Survey delivered with the
building permit application. The top of slope is not shown and cannot be verified from the information
provided in the application.
8. Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter: Access to this property is through a private access easement therefore
any development of curb, gutter or sidewalk would be in conjunction with the adjacent property owners sharing
in the access easement.
9. Improvement Districts: The property owner is required to join any future improvement
districts formed for the purpose of constructing public improvements which benefit the property under an
assessment formula. The agreement would be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of a building permit.
10. Riverside Irrigation Ditch and Pond: The Riverside Ditch, for which the City of Aspen holds the
majority water rights, bisects this property. Unless this property owner can provide documentation establishing
his water rights in this irrigation ditch, either the owner should obtain a revocable license for irrigation water
from the City Water Dept. or cease pumping water from the ditch for the landscape irrigation system.
As required by the City Water Dept., the owner will need to file licensing agreements for the diversion and
impoundment of the water from the ditch which supplies the on -site pond.
11. As Builts: Prior to C.O. issuance the building permit applicant will be required to submit to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Information Services Dept. as- builts drawings for the project showing the property lines,
building footprint, easements, encroachments, entry points for utilities entering the property boundaries and
any other improvements.
12. Work in the Public Rights - of - Way: Given the continuous problems of unapproved work and
development in public rights -of -way and easements, we advise the applicant as follows:
The applicant must receive approval from: City Engineering (920 -5080) for design
of improvements, including landscaping and grading, within public rights -of -way;
Parks Department (920 -5120) for vegetation species and placement, and irrigation
systems; Streets Department (920 -5130) for mailboxes, street and alley cuts; and
shall obtain permits for any work or development, including landscaping, within
public rights -of -way from the City Community Development Department (920 - 5090).
DRC Meeting MeetingSgeultes.i
Applicant: Robert Mehall, architect for owner
Staff & Referral Agencies: Chris Bendon, Ross Soderstrom , Rebecca Schickling, Russell Grance
DRCM3198.DOC
3 0F3
(b,2
omb l «,.oc, 1
4A -Le,+ - fib.
`C% pr L ni4
04W cr>lions
M 6 161106 IniV WS "i `a 1446
ppqq
1 i °A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission
THRU: Julie Ann Woods, Interim Community Development Director Cie •
fIJA
FROM: Christopher Bendon, Planner A
(
RE: Marcus Stream Margin Review and Special Review - 610 Riverside
Avenue
DATE: October 20, 1998
SUMMARY:
The applicant, Jeffery Marcus, has proposed a series of improvements to a property
along the Roaring Fork River. Improvements which represent development closer to
the river require Stream Margin Review by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Development which is essential may be approved by the Commission through the
Special Review process. The improvements are: an addition to a hot tub patio,
additional seating near the hot tub, steps to some mechanical equipment, and a fence.
Staff does not believe the development is essential but does believe the applicant's
concern for safety around the hot tub is valid. Staff believes the safety issue can be
met with the provision of some handrails which would have far less impact than the
proposed deck and seating area.
The site has a very clear break in the terrain separating the plateau from the steep
bank descending to the river. The majority of the improvements on the property
were constructed before the Stream Margin Review regulations and are substantially
within the "no development" area.
Staff recommends approval of this Stream Margin Review and Special Review
for the provision of handrails only.
APPLICANT:
Jeffrey Marcus, owner. Represented by Robert Mehall, Architect.
LOCATION:
610 South Riverside Avenue.
ZONING:
R -15. Moderate Density Residential.
LOT SIZE:
39,424 square feet.
LOT AREA, FAR
The applicant is not proposing additions to the main house.
1
CURRENT AND PROPOSED LAND USE:
Single- Family residential.
PREVIOUS ACTION:
The Commission has not previously considered this application.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
Stream Margin & Special Review. The Commission may approve, approve with
conditions, or deny this application at a hearing.
BACKGROUND:
The existing structure was constructed before the current requirements for Stream
Margin Review and does not have a prior approved top -of -slope or building
envelope.
STAFF COMMENTS:
There is an "essential development" provision in the Stream Margin Ordinance
which allows for such development that is necessary for community well being (for
example: sanitary sewer connection) and for development that cannot be reasonably
avoided.
Staff does not see any of this development falling into the essential development
category (please see Exhibit A - staff comments). The current patio is in compliance
with the UBC for safety. However, staff does agree with the applicant that safety
could be improved. But this goal could be achieved without the extension of the
deck further into the stream margin. In staff's estimation, the applicant should
provide a series of metal rails between the two rocks to provide safety with less
impact on the stream margin than the deck extension.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission approve this Stream Margin
Review and Special Review for the Marcus residence with the following conditions:
r,) 1. The proposed development for the deck expansion, deck seating, timber steps, and fence
� as represented in the application is not approved. The construction ofQMi railings
between the two rocks bordering the hot tub patio is approved.
2. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page
recordation fee. In the alternative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will
record the resolution.
3. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
2
ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION:
If the Commission does want to consider approving the improvements as provided in
the application, staff suggests the following conditions of approval:
1. The proposed development for the deck expansion, deck seating, timber steps, and fence
as represented in the application is approved.
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a 12' -wide public trail
easement which extends the full width of the property along the river, or demonstrate the
existing easement meets this standard.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a "fisherman's
easement" to allow fishing access along the edge of the Roaring Fork River.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall gain approval from the ditch
company for any improvements in or near Riverside Ditch.
5. There shall be no development other than approved native vegetation below, or within 15
feet of, the top -of- slope. The proposed planting beds on the river -side of the house shall
be planted with native vegetation. A list of native species is available from the City
Parks Department.
6. The existing development within 15 feet of the top -of -slope may be maintained but
cannot be expanded. The hot tub shall be drained through the sanitary sewer and not to
the river. All outdoor lighting on the property shall be downcast and not directed
towards the river.
7. The applicant shall agree to join any future improvement districts for the purpose of
constructing improvements which benefit the property under an assessment formula.
8. The applicant shall record this Planning and Zoning Resolution with the Pitkin County
Clerk and Recorder located in the Courthouse Plaza Building. There is a per page
recordation fee. In the altemative, the applicant may pay this fee to the City Clerk who will
record the resolution.
9. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public
meetings with the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve the Marcus Stream Margin Review and Special Review to install
a railing along the hot tub area with the conditions outlined on page 2 in the
Community Development Department memo dated October 20, 1998."
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Application
3
Exhibit A
STAFF COMMENTS: Stream Margin
Section 26.68.040, Standards Applicable to Development within 100 feet of the Roaring
Fork River and its tributary streams.
A. No development shall be permitted in the floodway, with the exception of bridges or
structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water diversion, which may be permitted
by the City Engineer, provided plans and specifications are submitted to demonstrate that
the structure is engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows and
the Commission determines the proposed structure complies, to the extent practical, with all
standards set forth below.
Staff Finding:
No development is proposed within the floodway.
B. No development shall be permitted within one hundred (100) feet, measured horizontally,
from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, or within the
Special Flood Hazard Area where it extends beyond 100 feet from the high water line of the
Roaring Fork River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a determination
that the proposed development complies with all standards set forth below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which is in the Special Flood
Hazard Area will not increase the base flood elevation on the parcel proposed for
development. This shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a
professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado which shows that the base flood
elevation will not be raised, including, but not limited to, proposed mitigation techniques on
or off -site which compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the
development;
•
Staff Findine:
No development is proposed within the floodway.
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area Community Plan,
Parks /Recreation /Open Space/Trails Plan Map, or areas of historic public use or access are
dedicated via a recorded easement for public use. Dedications are necessitated by
development's increased impacts to the City's recreation and trail facilities including public
•
fishing access;
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are implemented in the proposed
plan for development, to the greatest extent practical;
Staff Finding;
The property has an existing trail easement in place. However, this easement may be faulty
by not extending the full width of the property as it appears on the site improvement survey.
The Commission should require the easement be either verified as the full width or require a
new easement be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit for this project.
staff comments page 1
The Greenway Plan also requires a "fisherman's easement" along the edge of the Roaring
Fork River. The Commission should require compliance with this Greenway Plan by
requiring a fisherman's easement along the river bank.
4. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade changes (cut/fill) made outside
of a specifically defined building envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this
review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance of any demolition, excavation
or building permits. The barricades shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy;
Staff Finding;
Because the property has not gone through a Stream Margin Review in the past, a building
envelope has not been designated for this property. The existing development does
encroach on the river outside of where a building envelope would have been designated if
the property were vacant and reviewed under today's standards. Staff does not believe it is
important to designate a building envelope. This would be done under review for more
substantial development. Staff is suggesting the Commission only concentrate on the
subject areas under review.
The top -of -slope at the subject area of the proposed development is apparent by the
applicant's site section. The proposed deck, a fence, and timber steps represent new
development within the "no -build zone" which includes areas within 15 feet of the top -of-
slope. Staff does not recommend approval of these improvements.
Because the development activity is expected to be minimal, staff does not believe
barricading the site will be necessary to prevent debris from entering the river. If the
Commission feels this barricading is necessary, a condition of approval must be added to
the motion.
5. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the natural changes of the
river, stream or other tributary, including erosion and /or sedimentation during construction.
Increased on -site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent entry into
the river or onto its banks. Pool or hot tubs cannot be drained outside of the designated
building envelope;
Staff Finding;
Drainage from the site will not be greatly affected with this additional development. The
parking area is currently paved with bricks and the redeveloped driveway is not expected to
affect the runoff condition. The hot tub should be drained to the sanitary sewer and not to
the river.
6. Written notice shall be provided to the Colorado Water Conservation Board prior to any
alteration or relocation of a water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency;
staff comments page 2
7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or relocated, that applies to
the developer and his heirs, successors and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying
capacity on the parcel is not diminished;
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits related to the work within the
100 -year floodplain; and
Staff Findinu•
The development proposed will not interfere with the watercourse and is not within the 100
year floodplain.
9. There is no development other than approved native vegetation planting taking place below
the top of slope or within fifteen (15) feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever
is most restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian vegetation and bank
stability. If any development is essential within this area, it may only be approved by special
review pursuant to Section 26.64.040(D)
Staff Finding_
The existing hot tub and hard landscaping are within this area. The proposed development
represents an increase in the non - compliance of the Stream Margin criteria.
The Special Review provision is to acknowledge development which either is necessary
from a community health standpoint (such as utility hook -ups) or development which is
necessary for safety concerns or cannot otherwise be avoided.
The deck extension, bench seating area, timber steps, and fence are not within this category
of essential development and represent more improvement than necessary. The existing
deck condition is not in conflict with the UBC. However, the walkway is narrow and could
be improved with the addition of a railing between the two rocks. This is a treatment which
would have minimal impact on the Stream Margin and could meet the safety concerns of
the owner. Staff has provided an analysis of the Special Review criteria below.
10. All development outside of the fifteen (15) foot setback from the top of slope does not
exceed a height delineated by a line drawn at a forty -five (45) degree angle from ground
level at the top of slope.
Staff Finding:
The existing structure is not in compliance. The proposed development is not in
compliance as represented by the site section.
11. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications.
Finding:
Landscape treatments have been indicated on the site plan. The planting beds on the river-
side of the house should not contain non - native vegetation. This is important in
maintaining the bank stability and preserving the river corridor from invasive species.
staff comments page 3
12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no lights directed toward the river or located
down the slope;
Staff Findinp:
The Commission should require this as a condition of approval.
13. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape architect, or engineer are submitted
showing all existing and proposed site elements, the top -of- slope, and pertinent elevation
above sea level.
Staff Finding;
The site is relatively flat with a clear break where the site then slopes steeply to the river.
The Architect has prepared a site section showing the subject area of development which is
within the "no development zone."
14. There has been accurate identification of wetland and riparian areas.
Staff Finding;
The proposed development is not expected to affect wetlands or riparian habitat.
STAFF COMMENTS: Special Review
No development subject to Special Review shall be permitted unless the Commission
makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and
requirement set forth below.
D. 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 unworkable design problem.
Staff Finding:
Staff does not see any unworkable conditions. The existing improvements within the `no- build'
area can be maintained and replaced as necessary. The timber steps, fence, and hot tub area
improvements represent unnecessary improvements in the Stream Margin.
The Hot Tub is an existing condition but is not in conflict with the UBC. However, safety could
be improved with the addition of a hand rail. This existing condition does not require the
extension of the deck and seating area.
staff comments page 4
2. Any intrusion into the top of slope setback or height limit is minimized to
the greatest extent possible.
Staff Finding
Staff does not believe this standard has been meet. If the goal is to improve safety, provision of
metal rails between the two rocks would meet that goal and would be less intrusive than the
extended deck.
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.
Staff Finding,:
The majority of development on this site is within the "no- development zone."
4. Landscape treatment is increased to screen the structure or development
in the setback from all adjoining properties.
Staff Finding
Staff does not support the additional development in the no -build area. If the
Commission does consider this development essential, there should be a condition
requiring revegetation of disturbed areas with native vegetation.
staff comments page 5
RUG -13 -1998 12:42 FROM ASPEN /PITKIN COM DEV TO 9- 9274432 P.01
LAND USE APPLICATION -+
PROJECT: ✓ �/
Name: fv1Al $E$ IPEAIC-E
Location: 610 So0T14 RI VEa.SIwF. AVE,JUE r ASPEhl COI 0 CAOr
(Indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate)
APPLICANT:
Name: JEFFREY A. Maktz.c.us
Address: 6601 TURTLE C.(LEE ?IWO, IOA1 Lets, 79206
Phone #:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Name: Rob err ME I4AIL / 4iu►t4 " l cr
Address: IS (Du nat2 t . CouP- `7 CO /Nail
Phone #: 910. ern
TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply):
O Conditional Use ❑ Conceptual PUD ❑ Conceptual Historic Devi.
0 Special Review ❑ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ❑ Final Historic Development
❑ Design Review Appeal ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ Minor Historic Devt.
❑ GMQS Allotment ❑ Final SPA (& SPA Amendment) ❑ Historic Demolition
GMQS Exemption ❑ Subdivision ❑ Historic Designation
ESA - 8040 Greenline, Stream ❑ Subdivision Exemption (includes o Small Lodge Conversion/
Margin, Hallam Lake Bluff, condominiutnization) Expansion
Mountain View Plane
0 Lot Split 0 Temporary Use o Other:
❑ Lot Line Adjustment ❑ Text/Map Amendment
EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.)
et∎M E$1S)r16 Fing1SF j PEr(e.', VJIj'}Ilt4 1 Mt tP ‘4(Git I UtMMF OF
tllt=
944.94 4Ic1 Fnpac. tztvF4—
PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.)
Arno war Vna 0rr1- /9 4c3-1 ALt Pactsnar k ¶Ub l rl- 'Tth PfaMDE Ij-
& tt- Ci iCutAinn 1 Atsm t.uo Mnr TUe, .
Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $
❑ Pre Application Conference Summary
O Attachment #1, Signed Fee Agreement
❑ Response to Attachment #2, Dimensional Requirements Form
O Response to Attachment #3, Minimum Submission Contents
o Response to Attachmem #4, Specific Submission Contents
O Response to Attachment #5, Review Standards for Your Application
TOTAL P.01
08/08/98 TRU 18:14 FAX MARCUS CABLE CORP. ® 002
Aug 03 98 10:57a R. Mahal 1 /ARCHITECT 970 - 927-4432 p.2
.
ASPEN/PH%114 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees
(Please Print Clearly)
OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and J JEFFReY MAK,VS
(hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for 6IO Z AVM
ft6 t W. (hereinafter, THE PROJECT).
2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that City of Aspen Ordinance No. 43 (Series of 1996)
establishes a fee ahuchae for land use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a
condition precedent to a ttemlination of application completeness.
3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed
project, it Is not possible at this time to ascertain she full extent of the costs involved in processing
the application. APPLICANT and CITY father agree that it is in the interest of the parties to allow
APPLICANT to make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter pamit additional costs to be
billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining
greater cash liquidity and will matte additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they
are ney as a are incamed. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of
recovering its full costs to process APPLICANTS application.
4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete
processing or present sufficient information to the Planning Commission and/or City Council to
enable the Planning Commission and/or Chy Council to make legally required findings for project
approval, unless curt billings are paid in full prior to decision.
5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY'S waiver of its right to
collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an
initial deposit in the amount of S which is for _ hours of Planning staff time, and if
actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings
to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including
post approval review. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date.
APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension
of processing.
CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT
Signature: /1 7 9 it/ 11/1
Stan Clawson Date: Minee
Community Development Director Printed Names J .;- , w • ,
City of Aspen Mailing Addrca: 600 t Tla' .
NU kg V 15'25
ATTACHMENT 2
DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS FORM
Project: M4CGUS RESIPENIL
Applicant: iLe`f 1AAR(N
Location: ‘LC 5cuTl{ WVE12.54DF. AVtNt.6 ,4Cfi a i ('d tl4fia")
Zone District: g -ls
Lot Size: 9424- sr .±
Lot Area: 2216Z S.F. f
(for the purposes of calculating Floor Area, Lot Area may be reduced for areas
within the high water mark, easements, and steep slopes. Please refer to the
defmition of Lot Area in the Municipal Code.)
Commercial net leasable: Existing: J4A Proposed:
Number of residential units: Existing: N.A Proposed:
Number of bedrooms: Existing: 4- Proposed: 0
Proposed % of demolition (Historic properties only): µ.A
DIMENSIONS:
Floor Area: Existing: RA Allowable: Proposed:
Principal bldg. height: Existing: µA Allowable: Proposed;
Access. bldg. height: Existing: plA Allowable: Proposed:
On - Site parking: Existing: N.A. Required: Proposed:
% Site coverage: Existing: $ A. Required: Proposed:
% Open Space: Existing: (44 Required: Proposed:
Front Setback: Existing: N.,& . Required: Proposed:
Rear Setback: Existing: RA. Required: Proposed:
Combined F/R: Existing :_Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: Ns, Required: Proposed:
Side Setback: Existing: 0A. Required: Proposed:
Combined Sides: Existing: OA Required: Proposed:
Existing non - conformities or encroachments: Ealltz , Fla 4 en5RHG i4cYrntA CIS
IMMIif 10i 4fflAn . FV+nM Kea-
Variations requested: .s, ,•b t . 1._ .. ■ c_ A . o cf. G r•
tj2ovIt
sAFq., C.I iP_t W LATIn N ARrn wJb Ficl STln� E4nT ri rS .
Sep 15 98 03:15p Robert Mehall 970- 927 -4432 p.1
1
rebut mete*
ARCHITECT
Memorandum
To: Chris Bendon — Aspen/Pitkin Community Development
From: Robert Mehall
Date: 15 Sep 98
Re: Marcus Residence
610 S.Riverside Avenue
Aspen, Colorado
Stream Margin Review
Attached please a list of responses to the criteria listed in Attachment 5 for
Stream Margin Review.
1. Per the site plan and survey, the proposed development occurs
approximately 50' -0" horizontally and 25' -0" from the 100 Year Flood
Hazard line of the Roaring Fork River.
2. Per the survey, there is a platted easement fora public trail that is
approximately 20' -0" horizontally and 15' -0" vertically from the
proposed development at the hot tub deck
3. To the best of my knowledge, we shouldn't be impacting the river edge
with the proposed development.
4. It is our intent to hand dig four concrete piers to support the main
structure for the deck surface, thereby minimizing the impact on the
su roualding vegetation.
5. The proposed development is quite a distance form the river such
that no pollution or interference will occur in the river.
6. There will be no relocation or alteration to the watercourse, so no
written notice has been given to the Colorado Water Conservation
Board.
7. See Number 6.
8. See Number 6.
9. We plan to replant the disturbed areas at the points where the structure
hits the ground with native vegetation.
10.The height of the rail at the deck is per the U.B.C. building code for a
guardrail for life safety.
11. See number 9.
12. We will be repairing and replacing the existing fixtures that are
currently on site at the hot tub area to provide low level illumination in
this area, again for safety.
215 Cotmnbine Court
Basalt, Colorado 31621
Tel/Fax 970.927.4432
Sep 15 98 03:15p Robert Mehall 970- 927 -4432 p.2
13. See submitted drawing package.
14.The proposed development occurs a significant distance from the river.
Please review and call with questions and comments. As we discussed, I am
planning on attending the meeting at City Hall tomorrow at 1:30 pm. I will be
out of the office for most of the day, as I will be in Aspen for several other
meetings. I can be reached on my cell phone at 379.7504. See you tomorrow.
APPLICANT: Jeffrey Marcus
LOCATION: 610 South Riverside Avenue
ACTION: Stream Margin Review and Special Review
STREAM MARGIN:
Standards applicable to development within 100 feet of the Roaring Fork River and
its tributary streams:
A. No development shall be permitted in the floodway, with the exception of
bridges or structures for irrigation, drainage, flood control or water
diversion, which may be permitted by the City Engineer, provided plans
and specifications are submitted to demonstrate that the structure is
engineered to prevent blockage of drainage channels during peak flows
and the Commission determines the proposed structure complies, to the
extent practical, with all standards set forth below.
B. No development shall be permitted within one hundred (100) feet,
measured horizontally, from the high water line of the Roaring Fork River
and its tributary streams, or within the Special Flood Hazard Area where
it extends beyond 100 feet from the high water line of the Roaring Fork
River and its tributary streams, unless the Commission makes a
determination that the proposed development complies with all
standards set forth below:
1. It can be demonstrated that any proposed development which
is in the Special Flood Hazard Area will not increase the base
flood elevation on the parcel proposed for development. This
shall be demonstrated by an engineering study prepared by a
professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado which
shows that the base flood elevation will not be raised, but not
limited to, proposed mitigation techniques on or off -site which
compensate for any base flood elevation increase caused by the
development.
2. Any trail on the parcel designated on the Aspen Area
Community Plan, Parks/Recreation /Open Space/Trails Plan
Map, or areas of historic public use or access are dedicated via
a recorded easement for public use. Dedications are
necessitated by developments increased impacts to the City's
recreation and trail facilities including public fishing access.
3. The recommendations of the Roaring Fork Greenway Plan are
implemented in the proposed plan for development, to the
greatest extent practical.
4. There is no vegetation removed or damaged or slope grade
(cut/fill) made outside of a specifically defined building
envelope. A building envelope shall be designated by this
review and said envelope shall be barricaded prior to issuance
of any demolition, excavation or building permits. The barricades
shall remain in place until the issuance of Certificates of
Occupancy.
5. The proposed development does not pollute or interfere with the
natural changes of the river, stream or other tributary, including
erosion and/or sedimentation during construction. Increased on-
site drainage shall be accommodated within the parcel to prevent
entry into the river or onto its banks. Pool or hot tubs cannot be
drained outside of the designated building envelope.
6. Written notice shall be provided to the Colorado Water
Conservation Board prior to any alteration or relocation of a
water course, and a copy of said notice is submitted to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
7. A guarantee is provided in the event a water course is altered or
relocated, that applies to the developer and his heirs, successors
and assigns that ensures that the flood carrying capacity on the
parcel is not diminished.
8. Copies are provided of all necessary federal and state permits
related to the work within the 100 -year floodplain.
9. There is no development other than approved native vegetation
planting taking place below the top of slope or within fifteen (15)
feet of the top of slope or the high waterline, whichever is most
restrictive. This is an effort to protect the existing riparian
vegetation and bank stability. If any development is essential
within this area, it may only be approved by special review
pursuant to Section 26.64.040(D).
10. All development outside of the fifteen (15) foot setback from the
top of slope does not exceed a height delineated by a line drawn
at a forty -five (45) degree angle from ground level at the top of
slope.
11. A landscape plan is submitted with all development applications.
12. All exterior lighting is low and downcast with no lights directed
toward the river or located down the slope.
13. Site sections drawn by a registered architect, landscape
architect, or engineer are submitted showing all existing and
proposed site elements, the top -of- slope, and pertinent
elevation above sea level.
14. There has been accurate identification of wetland and
riparian areas.
SPECIAL REVIEW:
No development subject to special review shall be permitted unless the Commission
makes a determination that the proposed development complies with all standards and
requirements set forth below:
I. A unique condition exists on the site where adherence to the top of slope
setback will create an unworkable design problem.
2. Any intrusion 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 treatment is increased to screen the structure or development
in the setback from all adjoining properties.